In Fox, the Fourth District held that the trial court order modifying custody of the parties’ children was void because the only matter before the trial court was a petition for a finding of contempt with respect to visitation. In contrast, the parties in this case came to a voluntary agreement regarding the residence of and child support for Corey. Fox, 191 Ill. App. 3d at 520-21. Thus, Fox is readily distinguishable from the instant case. In addition, respondent cites numerous cases that, she claims, call into question the validity of the agreed order entered in this case. However, in the cases cited by respondent, either the trial court granted relief not requested by the parties (as in Fox) or the parties failed to receive court ap rance Co., 316 Ill. App. 3d 379, 388 (2000) (<HOLDING>); In re Marriage of Zukausky, 244 Ill. App. 3d
holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion holding that trial court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate action for malicious prosecution when matter before it was limited to motion for sanctions holding that motion for sanctions was not an independent cause of action and should be decided by trial court where frivolous pleading is pending holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court holding that where the issue of sanctions was not before the court of appeals when the appeal was filed the district court retained jurisdiction