In re Estate of C.B.

ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS
Appellate Court
In re Estate of C.B., 2013 IL App (3d) 130268
Appellate Court In re ESTATE OF C.B., a Minor (Richard B., Petitioner-Appellee, v.
Caption Eran Ajradinoski, Respondent-Appellant).
District & No. Third District
Docket No. 3-13-0268
Filed September 3, 2013
Held On appeal from an order temporarily granting petitioner guardianship of
(Note: This syllabus his minor half-brother, following the death of the minor’s mother, and the
constitutes no part of finding that the minor’s father was unable to make day-to-day decisions
the opinion of the court for the minor, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the order was
but has been prepared interlocutory and not appealable under Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(1),
by the Reporter of since the order did not make a final ruling on the guardianship petition.
Decisions for the
convenience of the
reader.)
Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will County, No. 13-P-224; the Hon.
Review J. Jeffery Allen, Judge, presiding.
Judgment Appeal dismissed.
Counsel on Richard Broderick, of Wilmette, for appellant.
Appeal
Paul T. Napolski, of Lisle, for appellee.
Jennifer Lynch, of June, Prodehl, Renzi & Lynch, LLC, of Joliet,
guardian ad litem.
Panel JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Carter and O’Brien concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 Respondent, Eran Ajradinoski, appeals from a temporary order of the circuit court
granting guardianship to petitioner, Richard B., pending a full hearing on the matter. We find
that the trial court’s order preserving the status of the minor pending a full hearing on the
matter was not a final determination of respondent’s rights appealable under Illinois Supreme
Court Rule 304(b)(1) (eff. Jan. 1, 2006). We therefore dismiss the appeal.
¶2 Respondent is the biological father of C.B. C.B.’s mother, Patricia B., and respondent
had a brief relationship in 1998 but did not marry. In 1999, the trial court entered a paternity
order and awarded custody of C.B. to Patricia B. Shortly thereafter, respondent moved to
Indiana. In September of 2012, Patricia B. enrolled C.B. in the Montcalm School for Girls
and Boys, a therapeutic facility in Albion, Michigan. The program offers 24-hour services
and tuition is paid for by the Wilmington School District.
¶3 On March 15, 2013, Patricia B. died due to liver cancer complications. On April 1, 2013,
Richard B., C.B.’s half brother, filed a petition for guardianship. The petition named
respondent as C.B.’s father and provided an address of 303 W. Main Street, Washington,
Indiana. On April 9, 2013, counsel for respondent filed an appearance on his behalf. The trial
court appointed attorney Jennifer Lynch as guardian ad litem for C.B. and set the matter for
hearing. On April 19, the parties appeared before the court and discussed the circumstances
of the case, particularly with respect to custody and jurisdiction. The trial court expressed
concern that it was going to take some time to resolve those issues. The court stated, “while
this is going on *** I want to be sure that this child’s welfare and status quo isn’t disturbed
while we go through this process.” The attorney for the school district then informed the
court that the district’s responsibility for C.B.’s ongoing educational program was contingent
upon the residency of the legal guardian, not the student. The parties indicated that they
understood the guardianship proceedings had been initiated to address that issue.
¶4 Following the hearing on April 19, the court entered the following order:
-2-
“The court being fully advised in the premises, and over the objection of natural father,
Eran Ajradinoski, finds that the minor’s mother is deceased and that the father is willing
but unable to make day-to-day decisions for the minor child based upon initial
investigation of the guardian ad litem, it is hereby ordered as follows:
(A) Richard [B.] is appointed guardian of the person of the minor child, [C.B.] (dob
11/21/98) without prejudice;
(B) All parties are granted access to the minor’s school records, subject to objection
of the minor;
(C) This matter is set for hearing on standing and jurisdiction of continuation of
guardianship on May 14, 2013[,] at 1:30 p.m.[;]
(D) Father is granted his leave to file a Motion to Dismiss within 10 days. Responses
due within 14 days thereafter.”
¶5 Before addressing the merits of an appeal, we have an obligation to determine whether
we have jurisdiction, even if the issue is not raised by the parties. Ruff v. Splice, Inc., 398 Ill.
App. 3d 431 (2010). The jurisdiction of the appellate court is limited to the review of appeals
from final judgments, subject to certain statutory or supreme court exceptions. In re
Marriage of Verdung, 126 Ill. 2d 542 (1989).
¶6 In respondent’s jurisdictional statement, he contends that we have jurisdiction to hear his
interlocutory appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(1) (eff. Jan. 1, 2006).
Rule 304(b)(1) provides that “[a] judgment or order entered in the administration of an
estate, guardianship, or similar proceeding which finally determines the rights or status of
a party” is appealable without necessity of a special finding by the trial court to permit an
interlocutory appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)(1) (eff. Jan. 1, 2006). Here, the trial court’s order
preserved the status quo of the parties pending a final guardianship decision. The court
specifically held that the matter was continued to determine the issues of standing and
jurisdiction and gave respondent leave to file additional pleadings. It did not finally
determine the respondent’s rights or status as a party in the proceedings.
¶7 We note that in In re Estate of H.B., 2012 IL App (3d) 120475, ¶ 30, our court held that
there are no explicit provisions in the Probate Act of 1975 (755 ILCS 5/1-1 et seq. (West
2010)) providing for an “emergency” or “temporary” guardianship. While we agree that the
trial court must make certain threshold determinations before awarding permanent
guardianship, we do not believe the order entered in this case violated that principle. Unlike
the final determination on review in H.B., the order in this case was not a final ruling on the
merits of the guardianship petition.
¶8 Under the circumstances, we hold that the trial court’s ruling was an interlocutory order
not appealable under Rule 304(b)(1). We must therefore dismiss the appeal and return the
matter to the circuit court.
¶9 Appeal dismissed.
-3-