Montelauro v. Lutkus
2025 IL App (2d) 240369
Ill. App. Ct.2025Background
- Hannah Elizabeth Montelauro filed for an order of protection against her ex-boyfriend, Jack Nicholas Lutkus, following a short dating relationship that ended in September 2022.
- Montelauro alleged Lutkus persistently contacted her (voicemails, texts from various numbers, Snapchat) after she ended the relationship, requested no further contact, and blocked him.
- The conduct included unwanted voicemails, texts, physical presence at her home and workplace, and, 18 months post-breakup, sending an explicit photo of Montelauro to her via Snapchat.
- Montelauro testified that Lutkus’s actions made her feel disrespected, fearful, and violated, particularly regarding her safety and privacy.
- The trial court granted Montelauro a plenary order of protection, crediting her testimony and rejecting Lutkus's claims he believed contact was welcome or confusion persisted.
- Lutkus appealed, arguing both the order’s factual basis and the adequacy of the court’s legal analysis under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supported a finding of abuse (harassment/interference with liberty) | Lutkus repeatedly harassed and compelled contact despite express requests to stop. | His actions were reasonable, based on confusion/mixed messages from Montelauro and attempts at closure. | Evidence supported harassment and interference with liberty; order affirmed. |
| Whether the trial court properly considered statutory factors under section 214(c) | Court considered all relevant statutory factors and made required findings. | The record did not reflect the court's consideration of required factors. | Court expressly indicated consideration via preprinted order; no error. |
| Was there a pattern, severity, or risk of future abuse justifying relief? | Persistent, escalating unwanted contact culminating in explicit photo shows pattern/severity/ongoing risk. | Only one explicit photo sent; apologized; no likelihood of future abuse. | Pattern and severity demonstrated, culminating in explicit photo and emotional distress. |
| Did Montelauro’s actions (e.g., mixed signals) render Lutkus’s conduct reasonable? | Any past ambiguity was clarified by unequivocal requests for no contact post-breakup. | Mixed messages before and after breakup justified his continued contact. | Requests for no contact were clear post-breakup; actions after were not justified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Best v. Best, 223 Ill. 2d 342 (Ill. 2006) (outlines standard for reversing fact findings under manifest weight of the evidence)
- Graham v. Van Rengen, 2024 IL App (2d) 230611 (reiterates standard of review and statutory findings required for orders of protection)
- Landmann v. Landmann, 2019 IL App (5th) 180137 (holding that checking preprinted order boxes can satisfy statutory finding requirements for orders of protection)