Background
Diana Colin and Arlene Sanchez, employees of a Boys & Girls Club attended by Latosha Montgomery’s children, separately sought stalking/no-contact orders against Montgomery. After evidentiary hearings, the Kane County circuit court entered plenary orders in November 2024. Montgomery’s direct appeals from those orders were previously rejected.
While the direct appeals were pending, Montgomery filed pro se petitions under section 2-1401 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure seeking to vacate the orders. She alleged newly material evidence, late service of a witness statement, and an inability to defend herself adequately after participating by Zoom from her children’s dental appointment. The circuit court denied the petitions, stating its reasons on the record, but no transcript or proper substitute record of that hearing was provided on appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed. Because Montgomery did not supply a transcript, certified bystander’s report, or agreed statement showing the circuit court’s reasons for denying section 2-1401 relief, the court presumed the discretionary ruling was correct under Foutch v. O’Bryant.
Montgomery also forfeited review by failing to argue that she met section 2-1401’s required elements, including a meritorious claim and due diligence. Her argument that she already possessed responsive evidence but did not know to bring it did not establish newly discovered evidence. The court further held that her remaining claims were either not briefed, could have been raised on direct appeal, or fell outside the appeal’s scope. It lacked jurisdiction to review the later denial of her motion to approve a bystander’s report because her notice of appeal identified only the February 4 order denying section 2-1401 relief.
Key Takeaways
- A section 2-1401 petitioner must establish a meritorious claim and due diligence in both presenting that claim and filing the petition.
- An appellant challenging a discretionary ruling must provide an adequate record; otherwise, the reviewing court presumes the ruling was proper.
- Issues that could have been raised on direct appeal generally cannot be used later as collateral grounds for section 2-1401 relief.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that postjudgment relief is not a second opportunity to present arguments or evidence that could have been raised earlier. It also illustrates the decisive importance of securing transcripts or a properly certified, nonargumentative substitute record when appealing a trial court’s discretionary ruling.