Background
Aida Vasquez moved from Florida into a condominium owned by her boyfriend, Robinson Aguilar, after the couple executed a lease for insurance purposes. In April 2024, after Aguilar believed Vasquez had been unfaithful, he locked her out of the condominium and arranged for her belongings to be packed. Vasquez had difficulty recovering all of her property, though police later assisted her and movers retrieved her remaining possessions.
Vasquez sought an emergency order of protection under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act. The circuit court initially denied emergency protection but ordered Aguilar to allow her into the residence to retrieve her belongings. By the November 2024 plenary hearing, Vasquez had completed her move-out, had returned to Florida, and testified that she had received everything. The circuit court nevertheless entered a three-month plenary order of protection and later awarded Vasquez $2,290.97 in moving and hotel expenses.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court reversed the order of protection because the circuit court did not make the mandatory findings required by section 214(c)(3) of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act. Specifically, the circuit court did not find that Aguilar’s conduct, unless prohibited, would likely cause irreparable harm or continued abuse, or that relief was necessary to protect Vasquez or another abused person.
The record indicated that the circuit court found the prior lockout and delay in retrieving belongings to be abuse, but did not credit Vasquez’s claims of future identity theft, investigation, or harassment. Given that the lockout had occurred months earlier, Vasquez had her belongings, and the parties lived far apart, the appellate court held that the missing findings were reversible error. It also reversed the expense award because it was relief granted as part of the order of protection and did not stand independently.
Key Takeaways
- An Illinois court must make the findings required by section 214(c)(3) before entering an order of protection.
- Proof of past abuse alone does not excuse the absence of findings concerning likely future harm and the necessity of protective relief.
- Expense relief awarded under an order of protection falls with the order when the order is reversed.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that protection orders under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act are forward-looking remedies. Courts must place the statute’s required findings on the record or in writing, even where the evidence supports that past abuse occurred.
The court noted that reversal of the protection order does not foreclose a traditional civil action seeking damages for an alleged illegal eviction.