Illinois Supreme Court Civil Issues Pending: Domestic Relations
[UPDATED THROUGH May 14, 2012]
In re Marriage of Coulter
Supreme Court Number: 113474
Appellate Court: Third District
Appellate Court Case Number: 3-11-0424
Issue Presented: May a trial court deny a petitioner's request for a preliminary injunction barring removal of the couple's minor children, pending a full hearing, where the parties had previously agreed that the wife could remove the children from the state at any time after 36 months from entry of judgment?
Appellate Court Opinion Summary: Petitioner and respondent entered into a joint parenting agreement following their divorce. The parties agreed that respondent could remove the children from the state at any time after 36 months from the entry of judgment. Petitioner subsequently filed an emergency petition for a preliminary injunction barring respondent from removing the children from the state, pending a hearing on whether removal was in the best interest of the children. The trial court denied the petition. The Appellate Court reversed. Pursuant to Section 501(a)(2) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, 750 ILCS 5/501(a)(2), either party in a marriage case may move for a preliminary injunction to enjoin a party from removing a child from the state of Illinois. A custodial parent who wishes to remove his or her minor children from the state must first obtain leave of court. 750 ILCS 5/609(a). Court approval is required even when the parties have previously consented to removal. The Court held that petitioner had demonstrated all necessary factors to prove his entitlement to an injunction.
In re Marriage of Mathis
Supreme Court Number: 113496
Appellate Court: Fourth District
Appellate Court Case Number: 4-11-0301
Issue Presented: In a bifurcated dissolution proceeding, when a grounds judgment has been entered, and when there is a lengthy delay between the date of entry of the grounds judgment and the hearing on ancillary issues, is the appropriate date for valuation of marital property the date of dissolution or a date as close as practicable to the date of trial of the ancillary issues?
Appellate Court Opinion Summary: In 2001, the trial court awarded the parties a judgment of dissolution, reserving a ruling on ancillary issues. In April 2004, the trial court commenced the hearing on ancillary issues. The petitioner filed a motion in limine to establish the valuation date of the marital property in November 2005. The court ultimately set the valuation date as January 1, 2006. In October 2010, respondent filed a motion to change the valuation date. After a hearing, the court set a new valuation date of December 31, 2010, but later certified the order pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308. The Appellate Court affirmed, finding that property should be valued in a dissolution proceeding as of the date of trial on the property distribution matter, or as close thereto as practicable. 750 ILCS 5/503(f). The court declined to find either a patent or latent ambiguity in the language of the statute. Justice Appleton specially concurred, agreeing with the judgment but expressing his concern that the court's ruling will promote gamesmanship.
In re Marriage of McGrath
Supreme Court Number: 112792
Appellate Court: First District, Second Division
Appellate Court Case Number: 1-10-2119
Issue Presented: Are regular withdrawals from a savings account "income" within the meaning of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, 750 ILCS 5/505, for application of the presumptive 28% child support obligation?
Appellate Court Opinion Summary: Petitioner sought child support and other relief. Respondent testified that he was currently unemployed and lived off the assets that were awarded to him as part of the marital estate, withdrawing about $8,500 per month from his savings account. The court ordered respondent to pay $2,000 per month in child support, and he appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed, holding that respondent's withdrawals constituted "income" within the meaning of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, 750 ILCS 5/505, and therefore were subject to the presumptive 28% child support obligation. The Appellate Court further rejected respondent's argument that his "income" was limited to the interest from his savings accounts.
Karbin v. Karbin
Supreme Court Number: 112815
Appellate Court: First District, Sixth Division
Appellate Court Case Number: 1-10-1545
Issue Presented: May a guardian file and prosecute a petition for divorce his- or herself once a spouse's counterpetition has been dismissed, as opposed to one originated by the ward before incompetency?
Appellate Court Opinion Summary: Respondent wife suffered brain damage after a car accident. Although petitioner husband was guardian for a time, he eventually was forced to relinquish guardianship due to the onset of Parkinson's disease. After the transfer of authority, wife left Illinois with her daughter and new guardian. Husband filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage, and later, wife (through her guardian) filed a counterpetition. Husband eventually filed a voluntary request to dismiss his petition, which was granted, and moved to dismiss and strike his wife's petition - which was also granted. The trial court granted husband's request to dismiss, and dismissed the wife's petition as well. The Appellate Court affirmed, holding that under In re Marriage of Drews, 115 Ill.2d 201, 203-04 (1986), a plenary guardian of a disabled adult lacks standing to maintain an action for the dissolution of a ward's marriage. The majority rejected a line of authority holding that such decisions could be made by the guardian only following a best interest hearing. Justice Cahill dissented, arguing that the case should be remanded to the trial court with instructions to determine whether the counterpetition was in the best interest of the ward.
Link to Opinion