Background
Philip and Cynthia Kampf were married in 1989 and had two children. Philip filed for dissolution in April 2006. The circuit court entered a judgment for dissolution in September 2011, ordering child support and maintenance. On appeal, the appellate court vacated portions of the judgment and remanded for reconsideration of child support arrearage, maintenance, and attorney fees.
On remand in December 2017, the circuit court entered a new order awarding retroactive child support of $349,409 and retroactive maintenance of $279,627. This was later modified to reduce retroactive child support to $289,971, with attorney’s fees set at $108,100 in April 2018. Kampf never paid any of these amounts.
In July 2024, Cynthia filed a petition for rule to show cause for indirect civil contempt, alleging Kampf owed over $675,000. The circuit court found Kampf in contempt in March 2025 and on May 8, 2025 set a purge requiring him to pay $10,000 within 30 days, followed by $1,500 monthly payments. The court scheduled a status hearing for July 9, 2025 to monitor compliance.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court dismissed Kampf’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Under Illinois law, a contempt order is not final and appealable unless it imposes a penalty—defined as a fine or imprisonment. The court found the May 8, 2025 purge did not constitute a penalty because it was merely a payment plan for amounts Kampf already owed, not a separate sanction for his contemptuous conduct.
The court reasoned that because the circuit court set the matter for status and had not yet imposed any actual penalty for non-compliance, the order was preliminary rather than final. The court explicitly noted that if Kampf had failed to comply and the circuit court then fined him or remanded him to jail, that imposition of a penalty might be appealable. The inclusion of Supreme Court Rule 304(a) language finding no just reason for delay did not cure the jurisdictional defect, as rule language alone cannot make a nonfinal order final.
Key Takeaways
- A contempt finding alone is not final and appealable; only the imposition of a penalty (fine or imprisonment) renders a contempt order final under Illinois law.
- A purge setting forth a payment plan for amounts already owed is not a penalty and does not make the contempt order final and appealable.
- Inclusion of Supreme Court Rule 304(a) language stating there is no just reason for delay cannot cure the lack of finality when no penalty has been imposed.
- Setting a matter for status hearing on future compliance indicates the contempt order is preliminary, not final, and an appeal at that stage is premature.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the distinction between contempt findings and appealable contempt orders in Illinois family law. It establishes that when a trial court finds someone in contempt and sets a purge (payment schedule), the order is not immediately appealable. Instead, the order becomes appealable only if the trial court subsequently imposes an actual penalty for non-compliance. This rule prevents premature appeals and allows the trial court process to continue without interruption.
For parties in family law disputes involving unpaid support obligations, the decision means that contempt orders establishing payment plans are preliminary orders subject to further proceedings, not final orders that can be taken directly to appeal. Only after the trial court imposes a sanction for failure to comply—whether a fine or incarceration—does the order become final and appealable.