Flood v. Richey
2016 IL App (4th) 150594
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- In Oct. 2014, Matthew Flood petitioned the Moultrie County circuit court under §10 of the FOID Act seeking an order requiring the Illinois Department of State Police (Department) to issue him a FOID card; the Department had denied reinstatement based on Flood’s 1999 battery conviction.
- Flood’s 1999 conviction arose from spanking a minor (the child of his then‑girlfriend); he pleaded guilty to simple battery after domestic battery charges were reduced.
- At the March 2, 2015 hearing the State’s Attorney did not object and the court granted Flood’s petition; a written order directing the Department to issue a FOID card was entered on March 10, 2015.
- The Department received notice of the order, then filed (Apr. 2015) a petition to intervene as of right and a motion to vacate the March 2015 order, arguing Flood’s conviction is a federal misdemeanor crime of domestic violence that would bar firearm possession under federal law.
- The circuit court denied the Department’s petition to intervene (finding the State’s Attorney adequately represented the Department) and struck the Department’s motion to vacate as moot; the Department appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Flood) | Defendant's Argument (Department) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dept. should be allowed to intervene as of right under 735 ILCS 5/2‑408(a)(2) | Intervention unnecessary; State’s Attorney adequately represented interests | Dept. has a sufficient, binding interest and State’s Attorney failed to adequately represent Dept.’s contrary legal position | Reversed: Dept. should have been permitted to intervene as of right |
| Whether Dept. has nonparty standing to move to vacate the March 2015 order | (Not argued separately) | Dept. alternatively asserted nonparty standing to seek vacatur and to appeal | Court declined to address because intervention was warranted |
| Whether circuit court erred in striking Dept.’s motion to vacate as moot | Motion moot if Dept. cannot intervene | Striking motion flowed from denial of intervention, which was erroneous | Reversed: striking the motion was error; remand for hearing on vacatur |
| Whether March 2015 FOID order should be vacated on merits because federal law bars Flood from firearm possession | Flood contended his conviction did not constitute a federal misdemeanor domestic violence (e.g., not parent/guardian relationship) | Dept. argued Flood’s battery qualified as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under federal law, so relief would conflict with federal law | Merits not decided by appellate court; remanded for hearing after permitting intervention |
Key Cases Cited
- Soyland Power Cooperative, Inc. v. Illinois Power Co., 213 Ill. App. 3d 916 (Ill. App. Ct.) (intervention inquiry focuses on timeliness, sufficiency of interest, and adequacy of representation)
- City of Chicago v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., 127 Ill. App. 3d 140 (Ill. App. Ct.) (if intervention thresholds met, statute directs that petition be granted)
- People ex rel. Birkett v. City of Chicago, 202 Ill. 2d 36 (Ill.) (denial of intervention reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Winders v. People, 45 N.E.3d 289 (Ill. App. Ct.) (Dept. permitted to intervene where State’s Attorney took a position contrary to Department and failed to protect Department’s interests)