Martinez v. The Cook County Sheriff's Office
89 N.E.3d 995
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Denise J. Martinez divorced Salomon Martinez; post-judgment order (May 2015) terminated child support but ordered $500/month spousal maintenance to be withheld from Salomon’s Cook County paycheck and sent to the State Disbursement Unit.
- Salomon (or his attorney) faxed multiple documents to the Cook County comptroller in June 2015 that included a cover sheet, a letter asking to “cease any current withholdings” (referring to terminated child support), handwritten court orders (one hard to read and not mentioning maintenance), and an amended income withholding order that continued $500/month maintenance.
- Comptroller wage-garnishment clerk Laura Murray reviewed the fax, terminated child-support withholding and—mistakenly—also terminated spousal maintenance withholding; Martinez missed seven maintenance payments before the error was corrected in September 2015 after her counsel notified the sheriff’s office.
- Salomon later paid Martinez the missed maintenance; Martinez sued Cook County and the Cook County Sheriff’s Office under section 35 of the Income Withholding for Support Act seeking statutory penalties ($100/day per knowing violation) exceeding $50,000.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9), arguing plaintiff could not recover because (a) the failure was not “knowing” but an innocent mistake (supported by Murray’s affidavit and the faxed documents) and (b) the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/2-102) bars punitive damages/statutory penalties against a local public entity. The trial court granted the motion and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff may recover a §35 statutory penalty from Cook County | Martinez contends §35 penalty is recoverable; factual disputes (e.g., whether failure was knowing) prevent dismissal | County argues §35 penalty is punitive and barred by Tort Immunity Act §2-102 as immunity for local public entities | Court held §35 penalty is punitive for Tort Immunity Act purposes and §2-102 bars assessment against the county; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the county rebutted the presumption of a knowing violation | Martinez argues factual issues remain and Murray’s affidavit improperly attempts to negate an element on a §2-619 motion | County says Murray’s affidavit and faxed documents rebut the statutory presumption and establish an innocent mistake | Court did not decide whether rebuttal was proper on §2-619 because immunity independently disposes of the claim |
| Whether the Tort Immunity Act’s official/discretionary/ willful-and-wanton exceptions apply | Martinez argues the clerk’s acts were ministerial or willful/wanton so immunity should not bar §35 penalty | County notes plaintiff sued the county (the payor), not the employee, so §2-102 immunity for punitive damages applies regardless of employee-role nuances | Court rejected these employee-focused arguments as irrelevant to the immunity of the local public entity and applied §2-102 to bar the penalty |
| Whether the court should weigh competing policy goals of §35 and the Tort Immunity Act | Martinez urges public-policy reasons to allow §35 recovery against counties | County argues statutes are harmonizable and §2-102’s "notwithstanding any other provision of law" controls | Court found the statutes can be read harmoniously and refused to rewrite §2-102; immunity governs |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Meter v. Darien Park District, 207 Ill. 2d 359 (discusses §2-619 standard and de novo review)
- Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp. v. Bank One, N.A., 348 Ill. App. 3d 755 (purpose of §2-619 to resolve legal/clearly provable factual issues early)
- Board of Trustees of Community College, Dist. No. 508 v. Coopers & Lybrand LLP, 296 Ill. App. 3d 538 (affirmance of §2-619 dismissal may rest on any record-supported basis)
- Paulson v. County of De Kalb, 268 Ill. App. 3d 78 (statutory penalty characterized as punitive for immunity analysis)
- Chen v. (In re Marriage of), 354 Ill. App. 3d 1004 (distinguishes statutory penalty from common-law punitive damages)
- Abruzzo v. City of Park Ridge, 231 Ill. 2d 324 (recognizes Tort Immunity Act as a proper basis for §2-619(a)(9) dismissal)