Thursday, August 21, 2014
A new public act dramatically changes how spousal maintenance is determined for divorcing couples whose combined gross income is less than $250,000.
Friday, May 9, 2014
In re Marriage of Iqbal
Illinois Appellate Court
Postnuptial agreement (PNA) signed by parties was unenforceable as it violates public policy. PNA gives counselor sole power to determine which parent will have custody of children, as counselor has sole power ot declare whether party seeking divorce is doing so reasonably, and is sole arbiter of whether either party has violated any part of PNA so as to forfeit any claim to custody. PNA is substantively unconscionable, and thus unenforceable, as its terms are significantly one-sided. Court's grant of sole custody to wife not against manifest weight of evidence, as husband often spoke negatively of wife and was found likely to interfere with children's relationship with wife.(ZENOFF, concurring; BURKE, specially concurring.)
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Today, in two separate decisions, People v. Clark, 2014 IL 115776, and
People v. Melongo, 2014 IL 114852, the Illinois Supreme Court considered
the constitutionality of several sections of the eavesdropping statute, 720
ILCS 5/14-2. In each case, the Court unanimously held that the current
eavesdropping statute is unconstitutional because it is overly broad.
In Clark, the defendant recorded courtroom conversations involving himself,
his attorney and the presiding judge. He also recorded a hallway
conversation with the adverse party's counsel. Clark did not obtain
consent from any of the parties to record the conversations. He was
indicted under the Illinois eavesdropping statute. He filed a motion to
dismiss the indictment and argued that the section under which he was
charged violated his First Amendment rights and his right to substantive
due process. The circuit court agreed and dismissed the indictment,
bringing the matter before the Supreme Court in the State's direct appeal
in defense of the legislation.
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Garman noted that the Legislature
amended the eavesdropping statute in 1994 to prohibit the recording of any
conversation unless all parties consented, even if there were no
expectation of privacy. Because this criminalizes the recording of a whole
range of conversations that cannot be deemed in any way to be private, and
because the legislation covers a broad array of wholly innocent conduct, it
is overly broad. Having held that a substantial number of the statute's
applications are unconstitutional, the Court found it unnecessary to
address the remaining arguments.
In Melongo, which was not consolidated with Clark, but had been argued on
the same day, Chief Justice Garman, again writing for a unanimous Court,
stated that the Court's analysis was guided by its holding in Clark.
Again, the strictures of the statute were not found to serve any legitimate
interest in protecting conversational privacy, rendering the statute
unconstitutional on its face.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Thursday, February 6, 2014
In re Marriage of Chez
Court properly found that joint property provision of parties' premarital agreement (PMA) was clear and unambiguous, even though it was silent on how to apportion costs in distribution upon dissolution. Parties, through PMA, agreed to opt out of coverage under Marriage Act and to set their own rules as to property. Court properly distributed two joint tenancy properties equally, and made no order of reimbursement of costs spent on one property, as PMA did not provide for it. Testimony of parties as to oral agreements is not relevant to interpretation of PMA, as PMA provides that any agreements as to real property must be written. (QUINN and PIERCE, concurring.)
Friday, January 24, 2014
For purposes of this statute, "right of first refusal," unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties, means that if a party intends to leave the minor child or children with a substitute child-care provider for a significant period of time, that party must first offer the other party an opportunity to personally care for the minor child or children.
If you have been following this act you will have noticed that the final language is actually different than how it was originally introduced in the Illinois legislature. Originally, the proposed change would have been mandatory on the court and spelled out that the time frame had to be more than four hours before the act was triggered. The statute that is now in effect at least leaves it up to the judge's discretion as the final arbiter of the best interest of the child in a custody dispute, but it leaves the "significant period of time" in which this child care would take place open to interpretation.
Monday, January 20, 2014
McLean County – Online Access
The McLean County Circuit Clerk and Circuit Court are pleased to announce that McLean County is now offering information on all open civil, traffic and criminal cases through their public access system. The link to the public access system is:
Please forward any questions or comments regarding on-line access to either Don Everhart, Circuit Clerk, or William Scanlon, Trial Court Administrator
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Illinois Appellate Court
Decision Date: September 12, 2013
District: 2d Dist.
Division/County: Du Page Co.
Court properly denied grandparents' petition for custody following evidentiary hearing on issue of standing. Grandparents failed to establish prima facie case of standing, and were required to show that child was not in mother's physical custody when they filed their petition. Court cannot reach best-interests analysis absent a nonparent's standing. (BURKE and HUDSON, concurring.)
The Family Visitation Center, operated by the Children's Home & Aid, will no longer receive funding from the Department of Justice-Safe Havens Grant. This will result in a reduction in hours and times of operation for the Family Visitation Center. Additionally, when the FVC reaches capacity, families will be put on a waiting list. Cases will be triaged for domestic violence, and Order of Protection cases will be placed at the top of the waiting list in the order in which they are received. The Family Visitation Center will continue to be unable to service cases that have any type of DCFS involvement.
The new hours of operation are as follows and will be effective on November 1, 2013
Wednesdays 5:00 p.m.--7:00 p.m.
Fridays 5:00 p.m.--7:00 p.m.
Saturdays 8:30 a.m.—5:30 p.m.
Sundays 8:45 a.m.—5:45 p.m.
Families who are currently being served will be notified of the changes in the schedule. None of the Family Visitation Center policies and procedures have changed, and the safety measures, including providing separate entrances and staggered times for drop off and pick up, remain in effect.
If there are any questions regarding these changes, please contact Marie McCurdy, Program Supervisor at 309-834-5206 on Fridays from5:00 p.m.---7:00 p.m. or by emailing her at email@example.com or Meg Backas, Program Director-Family Support Services at 309-834-5259 or firstname.lastname@example.org."
|You may have heard the good news that the Illinois Office of the Secretary of State recently approved the use of electronic insurance ID cards as acceptable proof of insurance.|
|You can simply saved an image of your insurance card on your phone and pull it up on the screen when you need it. So just take a quick photo of the cards when they come in the mail, and you are set!|
THIS MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, PRIVILEGED, AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. ANY RECIPIENT OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IS ADVISED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, COPYING, OR OTHER USE OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To the extent that this message or any attachment concerns tax matters, it is not intended to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by law.