# In Re Marriage of Lentz

> Illinois Supreme Court · April 18, 1980 · 79 Ill. 2d 400

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9726406

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re MARRIAGE OF LINDA S. LENTZ, Appellee, and LARRY DEAN LENTZ, Appellant
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 18, 1980
- **Citations:** 79 Ill. 2d 400; 38 Ill. Dec. 582; 403 N.E.2d 1036; 1980 Ill. LEXIS 311
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Ward
- **Judges:** Ryan, Ward
- **Cited by:** 63 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9726406

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an order disposing of some, but not all, claims might - 22 - be final, but it would be appealable only with an appropriate finding under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 1970)

## Opinion text

MR. JUSTICE WARD, specially concurring:
In this case the trial court granted the petition for dissolution of marriage but reserved for future action ancillary questions of maintenance and property division. Under the decisions in Ariola v. Nigro (1958), 13 Ill. 2d 200 , and Davis v. Childers (1965), 33 Ill. 2d 297 , these deferred issues did not constitute separate “claims” within the meaning of Rule 304(a) (73 Ill. 2d R. 304(a)). The action involved but one claim, namely, the petition for a dissolution of marriage, and Rule 304(a) is thus not applicable. The cases just cited also hold that a judgment not disposing of an entire claim is not final but merely interlocutory. Thus in Davis a judgment in favor of a single plaintiff on the issue of liability but deferring the issue of damages for later determination was held not to be a final judgment. See 33 Ill. 2d at 299 ; Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 110A, par. 304, Historical and Practice Notes to Rule 304, at 587-88 (Smith-Hurd 1968).
Since the present appeal does not qualify under any of our rules providing for interlocutory appeals, I agree that the judgment of the appellate court must be affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9726406. Public record. Not legal advice.