Schultz v. Performance Lighting, Inc.
999 N.E.2d 331
Ill.2013Background
- Schultz sued Performance Lighting, Inc. for $100 per day penalties under 750 ILCS 28/35 for failure to withhold child support.
- Notice to withhold was served November 19, 2009 but lacked the obligor's Social Security Number and other required information.
- Uniform Order for Support also lacked the obligor's SSN and did not designate an employer.
- Ex-husband worked for defendant; no withholdings or remittances were made through May 2010.
- Circuit court dismissed; appellate court affirmed that the notice was invalid due to missing SSN; the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate decision.
- Amendments enacted in 2012 later addressed employer notice obligations, but the court did not apply them retroactively here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omitting the obligor’s Social Security Number invalidates the notice | Schultz argues substantial compliance suffices; SSN omission should not defeat liability | Performance Lighting contends missing SSN renders notice invalid and no duty to withhold arises | Yes, invalid; missing SSN defeats notice validity and duty to withhold does not arise |
| Whether an invalid notice imposed a burden on the employer to contact the obligee | Employer should have clarified deficiencies; liability should not be avoided due to lack of contact | Statute did not require employer to contact obligee about invalid notice | No, no contact duty created by invalidity; no penalties without a valid notice |
| Whether penalties could be imposed under 2010 statute given the notice was invalid | Penalties should apply despite minor defects | Penalties require a valid, regular-on-face notice | Penalties not available where notice is invalid |
Key Cases Cited
- Nowak v. City of Country Club Hills, 2011 IL 111838 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2011) (strict construction favoring entities subjected to liability; penalties/liability interpreted narrowly)
- In re M.I., 2013 IL 113776 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2013) (statutory construction of penalties; de novo review of law)
- Gulla v. Illinois, 234 Ill. 2d 414 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2009) (validity of notice; state law choice in penalties; not addressing notice validity here)
- Michigan Avenue National Bank v. County of Cook, 191 Ill. 2d 493 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2000) (statutory interpretation; legislative intent; plain meaning)
- Shields v. Judges’ Retirement System of Illinois, 204 Ill. 2d 488 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2003) (legislative interpretation; limits on reading into unambiguous statutes)
- Croissant v. Joliet Park District, 141 Ill. 2d 449 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1990) (penal/statutory construction; narrow readings of liability)