In re Marriage of O'Brien
2011 IL 109039
| Ill. | 2011Background
- Circuit court dissolved John and Lisa O’Brien’s marriage; appellate court affirmed; certificate of importance was granted to John.
- Earlier domestic battery case involving Judge Waldeck; evidentiary ruling admitted certain tape evidence over objection; later trial resulted in acquittal for John.
- John sought substitution of judge for cause under 735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(3) alleging prejudice from prior case, social ties, and alleged impropriety; Lisa opposed.
- Judge Starck denied substitution for cause; found only greetings in a fitness club parking lot and no proven prejudice or appearance problems affecting judgment; maintenance and child support determined later.
- Appellate court affirmed Starck’s denial; this court granted certificate of importance to resolve standards for substitution for cause post-Caperton.
- Justice Karmeier issued a specially concurring opinion advocating use of Rule 63(C)(1) objective standards in substitution, while majority rejected that approach; ultimately maintained maintenance award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard governs for-cause substitution after a substantive ruling? | John urges appearance standard per Rule 63(C)(1)/Caperton? | Lisa argues actual prejudice control remains sufficient under Illinois law. | Actual prejudice standard governs for-cause substitution. |
| Did Starck correctly apply the standard to deny substitution? | John contends the proper standard was not used or was misapplied. | Starck applied the appropriate standard and found no prejudice or appearance issue. | Yes; substitution for cause properly denied. |
| Does Caperton require objective standards in substitution proceedings under 2-1001(a)(3)? | Caperton requires an objective risk of bias; Illinois should adopt Rule 63(C)(1) standards here. | Caperton does not control substitute-for-cause standards; due process not implicated. | Caperton informs due process concerns but Illinois rejects adopting Rule 63(C)(1) as sole standard; no Due Process violation. |
| May Rule 63(C)(1) standards be considered by the transfer judge in substitution proceedings? | Rule 63(C)(1) should be used to evaluate appearance of impropriety for cause. | Using Rule 63(C)(1) would rewrite the statute and invite judge-shopping. | Rule 63(C)(1) may be used as supplementary guidance, but actual prejudice remains controlling. |
| Was the maintenance award to Lisa properly decided? | John disputes maintenance amount/fairness. | Maintenance award supported by trial court’s discretion and record. | Maintenance award affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barth v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 228 Ill. 2d 163 (Ill. 2008) (recognizes appearance standards may be used in substitution context but does not replace actual prejudice)
- In re Moses W., 363 Ill. App. 3d 182 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 2006) (utilizes Rule 63(C)(1) in substitution contexts)
- In re Estate of Wilson, 238 Ill. 2d 519 (Ill. 2010) (latest on for-cause substitution standards; discusses bias concepts)
- In re Marriage Kozloff, 101 Ill. 2d 526 (Ill. 1984) (entrenched prejudice standard for change of judge prior to 2-1001(a)(3))
- Rosewood Corp. v. Transamerica Insurance Co., 57 Ill. 2d 247 (Ill. 1974) (pre-2-1001 prejudice framework; venues and changes of judge)
- Eychaner v. Gross, 202 Ill. 2d 228 (Ill. 2002) (bias standards and due process considerations)
- People v. Bradshaw, 171 Ill. App. 3d 971 (Ill. App. 1988) (appearance of impropriety considerations in recusal/substitution context)
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. _ (U.S. 2009) (due process requires objective standards where bias risk is real and intolerable)
- Jones v. Jones, 219 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2006) (recognizes narrow use of prejudice standard in criminal substitution contexts)