In re Marriage of Mather
946 N.E.2d 529
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Married in Du Page County (1988); marital residence and children located in Du Page; Tim moved to Chicago in 2009 with Lisle apartment; Tim filed dissolution in Cook County (Nov 5, 2009); Margaret sought venue transfer to Du Page under 735 ILCS 5/2-104 (Jan 25, 2010); trial court granted forum non conveniens dismissal (June 22, 2010) and denied Tim’s reconsideration; interlocutory appeal followed; appellate court affirmed on forum non conveniens grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly granted forum non conveniens dismissal. | Tim contends forum in Cook County; argues substantial connections to Cook County. | Margaret argues Du Page County is the more appropriate, privately and publicly connected forum. | Yes; court did not abuse discretion; Du Page favored. |
| What deference to the plaintiff’s forum choice is warranted. | Tim’s selection should receive substantial deference as home forum remained Du Page. | Tim’s choice deserves less deference since his primary residence shifted to Cook County. | Some deference given to plaintiff’s choice of forum. |
| Private interest factors support transfer. | Not explicit; emphasizes plaintiff’s ties to Du Page. | Private factors overwhelmingly favor Du Page due to witnesses, records, and convenience. | Private factors weighed in favor of transfer to Du Page. |
| Public interest factors support transfer. | Court should consider local interests and docket burden. | Public interests align with Du Page due to local ties and fewer Cook County connections. | Public interest factors favored transfer to Du Page. |
| Did Tim forfeit Rule 187(a) challenge by not raising it in trial court? | (Not raised in trial court) Tim forfeits argument. | Forfeiture applied; argument not preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 219 Ill. 2d 430 (Ill. 2d 2006) (forum non conveniens standard; balancing factors; deference to forum choice)
- Gridley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 217 Ill. 2d 158 (Ill. 2d 2005) (private and public interest factor framework; deference considerations)
- Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167 (Ill. 2d 2003) (balancing factors; discretion of trial court; docket considerations)
- Vivas v. Boeing Co., 392 Ill. App. 3d 644 (Ill. App. 3d 2009) (deference to plaintiff’s forum choice; private/public factors)
- First American Bank v. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d 511 (Ill. 2d 2002) (deference level to forum choice; private/public factor guidance)