Ralda-Sanden v. Sanden
989 N.E.2d 1143
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Collett filed a verified paternity complaint on Oct 19, 2011 under the Parentage Act, after learning her father Robert Sanden was alive in July 2011.
- Ana Ralda (Collett’s mother) had concealed Robert’s existence due to fear and past abuse by Robert; she informed Collett only in 2011.
- Collett was born Oct 24, 1989 and reached the age of majority on Oct 24, 2007, making Oct 24, 2009 the 8(a)(1) deadline under the Act.
- The trial court granted Robert’s 2-619 motion to.dismiss on Mar 14, 2012, deeming the action time-barred under 8(a)(1).
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that equitable tolling could apply to the 8(a)(1) period in this context and directing further proceedings.
- Justice Simon concurred specially; Justice Connors dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling can apply to 8(a)(1) under the Parentage Act | Collett seeks tolling due to late discovery of alive father | Tolling not warranted; 8(a)(1) is a fixed period | Yes, tolling may apply. |
| Whether Collett exercised due diligence to discover Robert’s identity within the statutory period | Collett diligently pursued after discovering details in 2011 | Internet searches were inadequate diligence | Yes, tolling permitted based on extraordinary barrier. |
| Whether equitable estoppel or other equitable doctrines defeat the statute of limitations | Robert’s misconduct toward Ana justified estoppel against him | Estoppel not applicable because nonparty conduct cannot estop plaintiff | Equitable estoppel not applicable against Collett; tolling upheld in majority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clay v. Kuhl, 189 Ill. 2d 603 (2000) (when tolling may be appropriate; discretion limited to exceptional circumstances)
- Williams v. Board of Review, 241 Ill. 2d 352 (2011) (federal tolling doctrine guidance; due diligence required)
- Van Milligen v. Department of Employment Security, 373 Ill. App. 3d 532 (2007) (tolling depends on whether statute is procedural vs. jurisdictional)
- Dornfeld v. Julian, 104 Ill. 2d 261 (1984) (limitations period in Act is procedural, not jurisdictional)
- Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 325 (2002) (limits tolling to statutes that fix the remedy, not substantive rights)