Schnepf v. Schnepf, 996 N.E.2d 1131

Family farm (~320 acres) was deeded in stages (1988–1993) to four siblings: Raymond, John, Lyndle, and Brenda, with Maleta (mother) attempting to reserve a life estate; prior appellate decision reformed deeds to secure Maleta a life estate.
January 2007: Maleta, John, and Raymond filed a partition action naming Lyndle and Brenda as defendants; parallel litigation concerning Maleta’s competence and a farm lease followed.
Multiple substitutions and reassignments occurred early; Judge Diane Lagoski ultimately presided and conducted numerous hearings over several years.
February 2008: John filed a motion for substitution of judge as of right under 735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(2); the court denied it in March 2008 relying on a “test the waters” rationale (that earlier courtroom discussion had revealed the court’s views).
May 2009: After the denial, the court issued a written order allocating ownership interests (three siblings 4/15 each, Lyndle 1/5). November 2012: court ordered sale of the property; appeals followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of John’s substitution of judge as of right was proper under 735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(2)	John: motion was timely (filed before any substantial ruling) and thus absolute right to substitution; court must grant it unless made to delay	Lyndle/Brenda: even without a formal ruling, John had an opportunity to “test the waters” during earlier hearings, so denial was proper	Court held the trial court erred: it rejected the “test the waters” doctrine and ruled the motion should have been granted because no substantial ruling had occurred
Legal consequence of improperly denying substitution: validity of subsequent orders (including May 2009 ownership ruling and November 2012 sale order)	John: orders entered after improper denial are void and must be vacated	Lyndle/Brenda: (argued merits of ownership and sale on appeal)	Court held orders entered after the improper denial are void; vacated those orders and remanded with directions to grant John’s substitution of judge

Aussieker v. City of Bloomington, 355 Ill. App. 3d 498 (2005) (orders entered after improper denial of substitution of judge are void)
Advanta Leasing Services v. Illinois Licensed Beverage Ass’n, 333 Ill. App. 3d 927 (2002) (statutory right to substitution without cause is absolute when conditions met)
Rosewood Corp. v. Transamerica Insurance Co., 57 Ill. 2d 247 (1974) (right to change of venue/substitution is to be liberally construed)
In re Marriage of Roach, 245 Ill. App. 3d 742 (1993) (discussed pre- and post-1993 statutory changes and the “test the waters” concept)
Scroggins v. Scroggins, 327 Ill. App. 3d 333 (2002) (interpreting timeliness under current §2-1001(a)(2) and rejecting reliance on pre-amendment rationale)
In re Estate of Wilson, 238 Ill. 2d 519 (2010) (substitution may be denied if shown it was made simply to delay or avoid trial)