CourtListener opinion 9965580

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

2024 IL App (1st) 240143-U
 Fourth Division
 Filed May 2, 2024
 No. 1-24-0143

 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent
 except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

 IN THE
 APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
 FIRST DISTRICT

In re MARRIAGE OF )
 ) Appeal from the
JACQUELINE PARRILLO,
 ) Circuit Court of Cook County
 Petitioner-Appellee, )
 ) No. 2017 D 004618
 and )
 ) The Honorable Abbey Fishman Romanek,
BEAU PARRILLO,
 ) Judge, presiding.
 Respondent-Appellant. )

 JUSTICE OCASIO delivered the judgment of the court.
 Presiding Justice Rochford and Justice Martin concur in the judgment.

 ORDER

¶1 Held: The court lacked jurisdiction to consider contemnor's interlocutory appeal of order
 amending body-attachment order nunc pro tunc. Contemnor failed to show that the
 trial court erred by modifying the contempt sanction to permit his release from jail
 on home confinement with electronic monitoring.

¶2 In July 2023, appellant Beau Parrillo was adjudged to be in contempt of court for failing to

comply with the judgment that dissolved his marriage to appellee Jacqueline Parrillo. The trial

court ordered him committed to jail until he purged his contempt by paying Jacqueline more than

a million dollars, which represented slightly more than half of what he owed her, but stayed the

commitment to give Beau the opportunity to make the payments. When he failed to do that, the

court entered a series of body-attachment orders directing the sheriff to take him into custody. Beau

was apprehended in December 2023 and brought before the court, which entered a series of orders
 No. 1-24-0143

effectively permitting Beau to be released to home confinement upon paying approximately half

of the purge amount. Beau now appeals those orders. We dismiss his appeal from one of those

orders for lack of jurisdiction. Otherwise, we affirm.

¶3 BACKGROUND

¶4 Jacqueline and Beau Parrillo were married from 2002 until 2020, when the Circuit Court

of Cook County entered a judgment for dissolution. Among other things, the dissolution judgment

ordered Beau to (1) make monthly payments of $7500 for child support (2) make monthly

payments of $10,000 for maintenance and spousal support, as required by the parties' premarital

agreement, (3) make monthly payments of $100,000 to pay down the mortgage on Jacqueline's

home, (4) maintain $10,000,000 in life insurance, and (5) transfer to Jacqueline 50% of the marital

portion of two retirement accounts that were in Beau's name. To facilitate the transfer of the

retirement accounts, the dissolution judgment named an attorney who would prepare qualified

domestic relations orders (see 26 U.S.C. § 414(p) (2018)) and directed Beau to furnish that attorney

with any documents she requested.

¶5 Three years later, in April 2023, Jacqueline filed a pair of petitions seeking rules to show

cause why Beau should not be held in contempt for refusing to comply with the dissolution

judgment. One petition involved Beau's ongoing financial obligations to Jacqueline. It alleged that,

in December 2022, Beau stopped making the required child-support and spousal-maintenance

payments to Jacqueline, stopped making monthly payments to pay down the mortgage, and

stopped paying the premiums on the life-insurance policies he was required to maintain. The other

petition pertained to the transfer of Jaqueline's portion of Beau's retirement accounts. It alleged

not only that Beau had failed to take any action to have the qualified domestic relations orders

prepared but that the accounts had been liquidated without notice to Jacqueline by his former

employer, United Automobile Insurance Company (United Auto), which is a company owned in

part by Beau along with his brother and his father. Beau filed responses in which he blamed his

failure to make support payments on the loss of his job, denied being required to maintain the

 -2-
 No. 1-24-0143

specific life insurance policies that he had stopped paying for, and asserted that United Auto had

"unilaterally distributed" the retirement accounts upon his termination. Beau did not specify where

the distributions—which amounted to more than $1.8 million—had gone, but he claimed not to

know whether any amount had been paid to Jacqueline. The trial court entered the rules requested

by Jacqueline, and the matter proceeded to a contempt hearing on July 17, 2023. The record does

not include a transcript of the hearing, but it shows that Beau appeared through counsel, not

personally.

¶6 Following the hearing, the court entered two orders, each corresponding to one of

Jacqueline's two petitions, finding Beau in indirect civil contempt. The first order pertained to the

retirement accounts. It found Beau in contempt for willfully failing to pay Jacqueline the sum of

$849,038.49, which represented her share of those accounts, and it ordered him to be committed

to jail until he purged the contempt by paying that sum in full, but it stayed the commitment order

until July 31. The second order pertained to Beau's ongoing financial obligations. It found him in

contempt for willfully failing to make $1,071,636.80 in payments for child support, spousal

maintenance, the mortgage, and the life insurance premiums, and it ordered him to be committed

to jail until he purged the contempt by paying Jacqueline 20% of the past-due amount, which the

court calculated to be $214,327.22, 1 but it stayed the commitment order until August 31.
¶7 Beau did not purge his contempt as to the retirement accounts by July 31, and he also failed

to appear for the remote status hearing set for that date. The court entered an order of commitment

directing the sheriff to take Beau into custody and keep him there until he posted a cash bond of

$849,038.49, the amount of the purge. It issued a separate order of attachment for contempt

directing the sheriff to take Beau into custody and either bring him before the court to answer for

his failure to pay Jacqueline her share of the retirement accounts or to release him upon payment

of an "Individual Bond set in the amount of $849,038.49." On August 10, the trial court issued

another attachment order that directed the sheriff to take Beau into custody to answer for his failure

1
 This figure appears to be a minor miscalculation: 20% of $1,071,636.80 is $214,327.36.

 -3-
 No. 1-24-0143

to appear in court. It authorized the sheriff to release Beau if he posted a "Cash Bond" of

$849,038.49.

¶8 In late August, Beau filed a motion to vacate or stay enforcement of the attachment orders.

The motion alleged that Beau was unable to pay the purge. It appears that the court stayed the

commitment order until at least October 5. The record does not disclose what, if anything,

happened on that date, but the court did not rule on the motion to vacate. On October 16, the court

entered an order setting the motion to vacate or stay for a status hearing on October 30 and

providing that "Beau Parrillo's remainder and statutory interest" from the July contempt orders

would be determined on November 13.

¶9 On November 13, the court entered an order of commitment based on Beau's failure to pay

Jacqueline $1,071,636.80 in ongoing financial obligations, setting the purge amount at

$214,327.22. It also entered an attachment order commanding the sheriff to take Beau into custody

and either bring him to court to answer for his failure to comply with the July 17 order directing

him "to pay the sum of $1,071,636.80 to Jacqueline Parrillo by August 31st, 2023" or to release

him from custody upon posting an "Individual Bond set in the amount of $214,327.22." After a

hearing three days later, which Beau once again failed to personally attend, the court entered an

order that, among other things, noted that the attachment and commitment orders associated with

both contempt findings "remain[ed] valid and outstanding."

¶ 10 On November 29, Beau, through counsel, filed two motions. The first sought to modify his

child-support obligations. It alleged that Beau no longer had any income as a result of being fired

by his then-employer in November 2022 and, for reasons not explained, falling into a coma for

nearly two months, leading to his hospitalization from August 14 to October 4, 2023, after which

he stayed at an inpatient rehabilitation center until November 20. It further alleged that Beau was

relying on his father for financial support. The second motion asked the court to reconsider, vacate,

or stay enforcement of the attachment orders and commitment orders associated with both

contempt findings in light of his inability to pay the purge amounts. In the event the court denied

the motion, Beau asked that it "provide 304 (a) language *** to allow an immediate appeal of the

 -4-
 No. 1-24-0143

issues herein contained." See Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(a) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016) (authorizing appeals from

final judgments as to some, but not all, claims or parties upon a special finding by the trial court).

Two weeks later, on December 14, the court set the motion for a hearing on January 23, 2024, and

gave Jaqueline until January 11 to file a response to the motion.

¶ 11 Although the precise circumstances are not disclosed by the record, it appears that Beau

was apprehended on December 20. After learning of the situation when Beau's attorney attempted

to file some kind of emergency motion, the trial court, acting sua sponte, entered an order that

appears to be an exact copy of the November 13 attachment order (the one associated with Beau's

failure to meet his ongoing financial obligations) with a new file-stamp dated December 20 and

four handwritten and initialed additions or alterations, which are italicized. First, the court retitled

the order as being an "Amended Attachment for Contempt Order." Second, the court changed the

provision for an "Individual Bond" to a "Cash Bond set in the amount of $214,327.22." Third, the

court added a notation indicating that the order was being entered "nunc pro tunc to 11/13/23."

Finally, in addition to the new file-stamp, the court wrote "DEC 20" over the original file-stamp

date.

¶ 12 The next morning, December 21, Beau filed an emergency motion to reduce his aggregate

bond to $500,000, asserting that he was unable to pay the full purge amounts ordered by the court

but that he had been able to put together $500,000 from family members "to be applied as a purge

amount" if the court reduced the bond. The motion also requested that, if the court denied the relief

it sought, its order include a Rule 304(a) finding.

¶ 13 When Beau was brought before the court later that day, his attorney, who had learned about

the nunc pro tunc order at some point that morning, complained that it had been entered without

notice or a motion filed by Jacqueline. The court explained that it had acted on its own initiative

and "fixed [the November 13 attachment order] because it was supposed to be a cash bond, not an

[individual] bond." It reiterated the point during a later exchange with Jacqueline's attorneys:

 "THE COURT: *** [I]f you want to object to a hearing on this, he gets

 an I bond because you did the attachment wrong. Anything else?

 -5-
 No. 1-24-0143

 [FIRST COUNSEL FOR JACQUELINE]: Your Honor, it's not an I

 bond. It's a commitment.

 THE COURT: No, it says, ‘individual cash bond.' I read it. I fixed it for

 you yesterday.

 Go ahead.

 ***

 [SECOND COUNSEL FOR JACQUELINE]: Your Honor, there was a

 commitment order entered in July that required Mr. Parrillo to post 800 and

 something thousand dollars.

 THE COURT: On the I bond.

 [COUNSEL FOR BEAU]: That the second—

 THE COURT: On an I bond.

 [SECOND COUNSEL FOR JACQUELINE]: On an I bond.

 THE COURT: You did them wrong.

 [SECOND COUNSEL FOR JACQUELINE]: There are those—

 THE COURT: I fixed them for you."

Counsel for Jacqueline later clarified that the court had only "fixed" the bond on the November 13

attachment order, not any of the orders associated with the first contempt finding:

 "[FIRST COUNSEL FOR JACQUELINE]: I think that just for a

 reminder of the Court, which I'm sure you're aware of, there are two—were

 two contempt orders that were entered on July 17th against Mr. Parrillo, and

 the July 31st commitment order that you entered was a cash bond in the

 amount of $849,038. Thereafter, the second commitment order was entered

 a few months later, and that is the one that Your Honor fixed sua sponte

 today from what my understanding [sic]."

¶ 14 With respect to the request for a reduced bond, Beau's attorney noted Beau's ongoing health

issues, which required him to remain in the ongoing care of a doctor, and remarked that he "would

 -6-
 No. 1-24-0143

hate to see something happen to Mr. Parrillo at [the jail] which would cause an issue for not only

the county but all concerned." Jacqueline's attorneys argued that the court should "follow the

commitment order[s]" it had already entered. The court decided to take the middle road:

 "[THE COURT:] Here's the Court's order for today because I—as of

 yesterday, I recall that your concern was that Mr. Parrillo would disappear

 again.

 The order for today is $500,000 cash. The remaining amount of, I guess,

 around 600—I want somebody else to do the math—is the bond—is the

 remaining bond for EHM. I will be putting him on electronic home

 monitoring. I don't need him to be cared for in—at [the jail's health-care

 facility]. He should be—he may be cared for at home. He will not be gone

 because he will be on electronic home monitoring. That's the order."

The court's written order stated as follows:

 "(1) The Respondent, Beau Parrillo, shall be remanded to the custody

 of the Cook County Sheriff.

 (2) The Respondent's bond shall be modified as follows:

 a) Respondent shall have a cash bond of five hundred thousand

 dolla[r]s ($500,000).

 b) Respondent shall have an additional cash bond in the sum of

 five hundred sixty three thousand three hundred sixty five dollars

 and sixty two cents ($563,365.62). Upon payment of the $500,000

 cash bond, Respondent shall remain in the custody of the Cook

 County Sheriff but shall be held on electronic home monitoring until

 the sum of $563,365.32 cash bond is paid."

The court also entered a form order placing Beau on electronic home monitoring. The order

provided that Beau should "not be placed on electronic home monitoring until he pays a cash bond

 -7-
 No. 1-24-0143

of $500,000.00" and that he would remain on electronic home monitoring "until he pays

$563,365.62 cash purge amount [sic]" to the clerk.

¶ 15 At some point in the following days, Beau posted the $500,000 bond and was released on

electronic home monitoring. On December 26, the court entered an order to release the cash posted

as bond. The order recited that the court had entered two orders finding Beau in contempt and later

entered commitment orders, that "[o]n December 17 [sic], 2023, the Honorable Court modified

Beau Parrillo's purge and set the cash bond in the amount of $500,000.00," and that Beau had

posted the $500,000 bond. It directed the clerk to "immediately turn over the cash bond" to

Jacqueline.

¶ 16 On January 19, 2024, Beau filed a notice of appeal stating that he was appealing the court's

December 20 and December 21 orders "for modification of an injunction, and any and all order(s)

leading up to and included in said orders premised on the manifest errors in the rendering of said

orders," under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(a) (eff. Nov. 1, 2017).

¶ 17 ANALYSIS

¶ 18 On appeal, Beau challenges the trial court's December 20 order that amended the

November 13 attachment order nunc pro tunc, the December 21 orders that authorized his release

onto home confinement with electronic monitoring upon posting a $500,000 bond, and the

December 26 order that ordered the clerk of the court to turn the bond over to Jacqueline.

¶ 19 A. Preliminary Matters

¶ 20 We start by addressing four preliminary matters.

¶ 21 First, while this appeal was pending, Jacqueline filed a motion to dismiss for want of

appellate jurisdiction arguing that the December 20 and December 21 orders were not injunctive

in nature and therefore not appealable under Rule 307(a). Beau filed a response contending that

both orders were appealable under Rule 307(a). He reasoned that all three orders modified previous

attachment orders and argued that the body-attachment orders are injunctive in nature because they

compelled him to post a bond. We took the motion with the case. Additionally, we have an

 -8-
 No. 1-24-0143

independent duty to assess our own jurisdiction. People v. Smith, 228 Ill. 2d 95, 104 (2008). As

explained below, we find that we have jurisdiction to review the December 21 orders but not the

December 20 order, so the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.

¶ 22 Second, in his briefs, Beau contends that the trial court erred when it entered the December

26 order directing the clerk to pay the $500,000 bond Beau posted to Jacqueline. We lack

jurisdiction to review that order because it was not specified in the notice of appeal. Our

jurisdiction turns on compliance with the rules. People v. Salem, 2016 IL 118693, ¶ 11. Rule

303(b)(2) requires that a notice of appeal "specify the judgment or part thereof or other orders

appealed from." Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(b)(2) (eff. July 1, 2017). It follows that "[a] notice of appeal

confers jurisdiction on the appellate court to consider only the judgments or parts of judgments

specifically identified in the notice." Clark v. Gannett Co., Inc., 2018 IL App (1st) 172041, ¶ 54.

Beau's notice of appeal, which was filed on January 19, 2024, stated that he was appealing from

the December 20 and December 21 orders "and any and all order(s) leading up to and included in

said orders." It did not indicate that he was appealing from the December 26 order, so it did not

invoke our jurisdiction to review that order. As Beau did not perfect an appeal from that order, we

will not consider his arguments that it was entered in error.

¶ 23 Third, the thrust of many of the arguments in Beau's brief is that he lacks the ability to pay

the purge amounts ordered by the trial court. The purge amounts reflect Beau's unsatisfied

obligations under the dissolution judgment. When it found Beau in contempt on July 17, 2023, the

trial court expressly found that he "had, and still has, the means to comply" with those obligations

and that his failure to do so was "willful and contumacious." In other words, the trial court found

that Beau had the ability to pay what he owed. Because those findings were accompanied by a

penalty—commitment—they were immediately appealable. Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)(5) (eff. Mar. 8,

2016). Under the rules, any notice of appeal was due 30 days later, on August 16. Ill. S. Ct. R.

303(a)(1) (eff. July 1, 2017); see Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016). The time for Beau to

appeal those findings has long since passed, so they are not within our scope of review in this

appeal. See Revolution Portfolio, LLC v. Beale, 341 Ill. App. 3d 1021, 1025 (2003). To be sure,

 -9-
 No. 1-24-0143

circumstances may have changed since then. Indeed, based on the same arguments he makes in

this court, Beau has filed a motion to reconsider or vacate the contempt sanctions. But that motion

is still pending, so there is no order for us to review. In short, Beau's arguments that he is unable

to pay the purge amounts are either untimely or premature. Either way, we will not address them

in this appeal.

¶ 24 Finally, Beau's briefs contain conclusory requests for us to "enter a supervisory order to

oversee the trial court's management of this case." We reject that request because, in Illinois, only

the supreme court is vested with supervisory authority over other courts. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI,

§ 16; People v. Young, 2018 IL 122598, ¶ 28 ("[T]he appellate court does not possess supervisory

authority.").

¶ 25 B. The December 20 Order

¶ 26 We begin with the court's December 20 order. Beau characterizes it as a modification of

the November 13 attachment order, but the order expressly states that it is a nunc pro tunc order,

not a modification. The purpose of a nunc pro tunc order is to correct clerical errors or omissions

in the record so that it accurately reflects "what was actually done before." Wells v. State Farm

Fire & Casualty Co., 2020 IL App (1st) 190631, ¶ 43. "In other words, a nunc pro tunc order

allows the record to express, in writing, what the court actually intended to occur." U.S. Bank

National Ass'n v. Luckett, 2013 IL App (1st) 113678, ¶ 27. So, on its face, the December 20 order

purports to do nothing more than make a clerical correction to the November 13 attachment order

to reflect that the court had actually ordered the sheriff to release Beau only if he posted a cash

bond (which would require payment in full), not an individual bond (which would not). See In re

Mar. S., 2023 IL App (1st) 231349, ¶ 37 (stating that an oral pronouncement controls over an

inconsistent written order). The record does not contain a transcript of the November 13

proceedings, so we must presume that the record would support the trial court's designation of the

December 20 order as a clerical correction rather than a substantive modification. See Ally

Financial Inc v. Pira, 2017 IL App (2d) 170213, ¶ 30 (presuming, based on absence of report of

 -10-
 No. 1-24-0143

proceedings or bystander report, that nunc pro tunc order was in conformity with the law and had

a sufficient factual basis). That presumption is not rebutted by the trial court's remarks at the

December 21 hearing that it had "fixed" the orders prepared by Jacqueline's counsel, which are

consistent with the court having corrected a clerical error made by counsel when preparing the

written order.

¶ 27 Accordingly, we must treat the December 20 order as being what it purported to be: a mere

clerical correction to the November 13 attachment order. That being the case, we lack jurisdiction

to review it. In general, we have jurisdiction to review appeals from final orders or judgments. See

Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 6; Ill. S. Ct. R. 301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994). But the nunc pro tunc order here

was not a final judgment. Consequently, we only have jurisdiction if the supreme court rules

authorize interlocutory review. EMC Mortgage Corp. v. Kemp, 2012 IL 113419, ¶ 9. There is no

supreme court rule providing for appeals from nunc pro tunc orders as such, but there is authority

for the proposition that an appeal may be taken from a nunc pro tunc order if the underlying

judgment or order being corrected would itself be appealable. See In re Marriage of Breslow, 306

Ill. App. 3d 41, 51 (1999) (stating, in the context of an order amending a final judgment nunc pro

tunc, that "[a] nunc pro tunc order may itself properly be treated as an appealable order, because it

would be manifestly unfair to allow a party no avenue in which to seek appellate review of the

propriety of such an order"). The November 13 attachment order, though, was not itself appealable.

The rules do not specifically authorize appeals from attachment orders. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)

(eff. Mar. 8, 2016) (appeals from final judgments as to some, but not all, claims or parties);

R. 306(a) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) (discretionary appeals from interlocutory orders); R. 307(a) (eff. Nov.

1, 2017) (appeals as of right from interlocutory orders). A prejudgment attachment can be appealed

under Rule 304(a) if the trial court finds that there is no just reason to delay the appeal. Revolution

Portfolio, LLC v. Beale, 341 Ill. App. 3d 1021, 1026-27 (2003). But the trial court did not make

that finding here.

¶ 28 Beau argues that the attachment order was an appealable injunction under Rule 307(a)(1),

but attachment orders are not injunctions. Cozart v. Cozart, 258 Ill. App. 3d 848, 850 (1994). "Not

 -11-
 No. 1-24-0143

every nonfinal order of a court is appealable, even if it compels a party to do or not do a particular

thing." In re a Minor, 127 Ill. 2d 247, 261-62 (1989). Typically, an order is injunctive when it

"affect[s] the relationship of the parties in their everyday activity apart from the litigation." Id. at

262. The November 13 body attachment, while significant for Beau's day-to-day life, had no

impact on his and Jacqueline's legal relationship outside of the legal proceedings themselves. It

was simply the "vehicle used to effectuate" the court's order committing Beau to the sheriff's

custody until he purged his contempt for not obeying the dissolution judgment. In re Marriage of

Harnack, 2022 IL App (1st) 210143, ¶ 75.

¶ 29 Because the attachment order was not an injunction, it was not appealable under Rule

307(a)(1), nor was it appealable under any other rule. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the

trial court's December 20 nunc pro tunc amendment of that order, which means we must dismiss

Beau's appeal from that order. See Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill. 2d 217, 251-52

(2010).

¶ 30 C. The December 21 Orders

¶ 31 That brings us to the December 21 orders. Taken together, the December 21 orders provided

for Beau to be "remanded to the custody of the Cook County Sheriff" until Beau posted a $500,000

bond, after which Beau would be "remanded into the custody of the Cook County Department of

Corrections and transferred to the supervisory authority of the Sheriff's Electronic Monitoring

Program." He would then remain on electronic home monitoring "until he pa[id] $563,365.62 cash

purge amount," at which point he would be "released from" it.

¶ 32 Both parties construe these as modifications to the attachment orders, but we think they

are better understood as modifying the court's previous orders of commitment for contempt. As

previously noted, the purpose of the body-attachment orders was to authorize the sheriff to take

Beau into custody to effectuate the orders of commitment as contempt sanctions. See Harnack,

2022 IL App (1st) 210143, ¶ 76. Hence, the attachments ordered the sheriff to "take custody" of

Beau and either "immediately bring him" before the court or "accept[] bond" as set in the order

 -12-
 No. 1-24-0143

and "require his *** appearance in court at a specified date and time." Once the sheriff had

followed the court's command "to serve this writ and return it without delay," the obligations

imposed by the attachment orders were discharged in full. The commitment orders, on the other

hand, imposed ongoing obligations on the sheriff. They ordered the sheriff to "take and keep

custody" of Beau "until he purges himself of contempt by posting" the applicable purge amount,

with the July 31 commitment order (pertaining to the retirement accounts) specifying that the purge

would take the form of a "cash bond." 2

¶ 33 Unlike the attachment orders, the December 21 orders did not contemplate that the sheriff

would merely apprehend Beau for the purpose of ensuring his appearance in court. Instead, like

the commitment orders, the December 21 orders imposed an ongoing obligation on the sheriff to

keep Beau in custody unless and until he paid the purge amounts. In substance, then, they were

modifications of the trial court's previous orders of commitment for contempt, not of its attachment

orders. The court's statements on the record confirm that the point of its orders was to ensure that

Beau remained in a form of coercive custody that would prevent him from disappearing while

permitting him, in light of his serious health problems, to be "cared for at home" rather than in jail.

¶ 34 Because the December 21 orders modified the contempt sanction by authorizing Beau's

release on electronic home monitoring upon partial payment of the purge amount, we have

jurisdiction to review them. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)(5) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016) (authorizing appeals

from orders imposing a penalty upon a finding of contempt) see also In re a Minor, 127 Ill. 2d at

2
 It is not clear why the two orders are different in this respect. Both orders, which were prepared
 by counsel for Jacqueline, indicate that they were prepared using form CCDR 0033, part of
 which reads as follows:
 "IT IS ORDERED THAT the Sheriff take and keep custody of [blank] until s/he
 purges her/himself of contempt by posting $ [blank] Cash Bond and/or [blank] or
 until released by process of law." Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Form
 CCDR 0033, Order of Commitment for Contempt (rev. Dec. 1, 2020), available at
 https://services.cookcountyclerkofcourt.org/Forms/Forms/pdf_files/CCDR0033.pdf.
 The November 13, 2023 order omitted "Cash Bond and/or [blank]," which was equivalent to
 one line of text on the form. Despite that omission, it still bore the order code for setting a bond.

 -13-
 No. 1-24-0143

260 (looking "to the substance of the [judicial] action, not its form," to determine its appealability).

We therefore deny the motion to dismiss the appeal from the December 21 orders.

¶ 35 On the merits, we find no error. 3 Beau argues that the $500,000 cash bond set in the

December 21 orders failed to comply with section 12-107.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 735

ILCS 5/12-107.5 (West 2022). Although the bond in this case certainly exceeded the limit set out

in the statute, which provides for "a recognizance bond in the sum of no more than $1,000"

(id. § 12-107.5(d)), the statute only applies to an "order of body attachment or other civil order for

the incarceration or detention of a natural person respondent to answer for a charge of indirect civil

contempt." Id. § 12-107.5(a). Once a contempt order has been entered, section 12-107.5 no longer

governs. Harnack, 2022 IL App (1st) 210143, ¶ 72. Here, Beau had already been found in

contempt. The commitment orders (including the December 21 modifications) were entered as

contempt sanctions, not as a way to get Beau before the court for the contempt hearing, so they

did not need to comply with section 12-107.5.

¶ 36 Beau also argues that the trial court violated section 713 of the Illinois Marriage and

Dissolution of Marriage Act. 750 ILCS 5/713 (West 2022). His argument is somewhat opaque, but

there is no need for us to try to unpack it. By its express terms, section 713 only applies to body-

attachment orders. Id. § 713(a). The December 21 orders modified the orders of commitment, not

the body attachments, so section 713 has no role to play.

¶ 37 Finally, to the extent that Beau contends that the December 21 orders improperly increased,

without a hearing, the amount he would have to pay to purge his contempt, we disagree. Whatever

the attachment orders may have said, the original commitment orders required Beau to pay the

3
 Jacqueline argues that Beau forfeited these contentions of error by not raising them in the trial
 court. See Dubey v. Public Storage, Inc., 395 Ill. App. 3d 342 at 350-51 (2009) (describing
 forfeiture rule). Because we find the arguments lack merit, it is unnecessary for us to consider
 whether Beau forfeited them or whether the interests of justice would require us to reach them
 despite forfeiture. Cf. Door Properties, LLC v. Nahlawi, 2024 IL App (1st) 230012, ¶¶ 52-53
 (looking past forfeiture to address contemnor's claim that he had been wrongly and indefinitely
 deprived of his freedom).

 -14-
 No. 1-24-0143

purge amounts in full. The December 21 orders did not change the purge amount. They only gave

Beau the option of securing his release to electronic home monitoring upon partial payment.

¶ 38 CONCLUSION

¶ 39 We lack jurisdiction to review the trial court's December 20, 2023 nunc pro tunc order, so

we dismiss the appeal from that order. We find no error in the trial court's December 21, 2023

orders modifying the contempt sanction, so those orders are affirmed. And because the trial court's

December 26, 2023 order releasing the bond was not specified in the notice of appeal, we lack

jurisdiction to review it.

¶ 40 Affirmed in part; appeal dismissed in part.

 -15-