Gitlin Law Firm 2008 Illinois Divorce and Paternity Case and ...

case. In general, courts have not required that parties seeking to enjoin later-filed
actions demonstrate the existence of the elements typically needed for injunctive
relief in other contexts... Instead, courts have enjoined parties from filing or
proceeding with actions in other Illinois courts where (a) either the parties and the
legal issues involved are the same or the issues involved in the later-filed action are
of the type that can and should ordinarily be disposed of in the course of the
original action; and (b) there does not appear to be any proper purpose for the
maintenance of the later-filed action.
The appellate court then noted the general rule that “when two or more actions involving the same
parties and the same issues are brought in different venues, "the court first acquiring jurisdiction
retains the jurisdiction and may dispose of the entire controversy, and no court of coordinate
power is at liberty to interfere with the first court's jurisdiction.” The appellate court noted with
the approval the decision in IRMO Baltzer, 150 Ill. App. 3d 890 (1986), where it affirmed the
injunction against a later-filed action without requiring that the parties seeking the injunction
show the traditional elements for an injunction. In that case, the trial court had entered an
injunction requiring an attorney to file his attorney fee petition in DuPage County, the court in
which the divorce was proceeding, and to dismiss his separate Cook County petition. The
appellate court there that duplicative actions waste the resources of the courts and litigants.
The appellate court also cited IRMO Schweihs, 222 Ill. App. 3d 887 (1991), GDR 92-18, where
the court upheld the entry of an enjoining the mortgagee of the marital home as a third party in a
divorce case and enjoining the dissolution case, enjoining that mortgagee from filing any
foreclosure action in a separate division of the same circuit court – thus requiring it to file the
foreclosure in the dissolution action instead. Finally, however, the court noted but criticized the
language from one case which had IRMO Elliott, 265 Ill. App. 3d at 914, that "[c]ourts use the
same standards for preliminarily enjoining legal actions as for other preliminary injunctions." The
appellate court stated:
Accordingly, .. We hold that a litigant seeking to enjoin later-filed actions in other
Illinois courts need not demonstrate the existence of the factors for typical
injunctions ... and may obtain an injunction where: (a) either the parties and the
legal issues involved are the same or the issues involved in the later-filed action are
of the type that can and ordinarily should be disposed of in the course of the
original action; and (b) there does not appear to be any proper purpose for the
maintenance of the later-filed action.
Nessler - Divorce Judgments / Fraud
Nessler v. Nessler, No. 4-07-0220 (4 Dist., March 14, 2008)
th
Reversed and remanded. Nessler is an unusual and complex case involving, in part, an action for
money damages caused by the ex-husband’s alleged fraudulent inducement of her execution of the
marital settlement agreement. In this case the parties were married, divorced, remarried and then
the remarriage was declared invalid. The ex-husband moved to dismiss the complaint per Section
2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellate court noted the allegation in the complaint
that the husband, an attorney, induced her to enter into agreement by misrepresenting to her the
The Gitlin Law Firm, P.C. Page 48 of 55 www.gitlinlawfirm.com