Schultz v. Performance Lighting, Inc.
2013 IL App (2d) 120405
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiff Jennifer Schultz sought to recover child-support amounts that were not withheld from her ex-husband’s wages.
- Ex-husband was employed by Performance Lighting, Inc. at the relevant time.
- Lake County circuit court ordered ex-husband to pay $600 biweekly in November 2009.
- Schultz served a notice to withhold on Performance Lighting, but the notice lacked the ex-husband’s Social Security number and the termination date.
- A $100-per-day penalty provision exists for willful noncompliance, and the notice’s validity is central to triggering withholding duties.
- Trial court dismissed Schultz’s complaint for lack of strict compliance with 750 ILCS 28/20(c) and 28/35.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the withholding notice complied with 750 ILCS 28/20(c). | Schultz argues substantial compliance suffices to trigger withholding. | Performance Lighting contends strict compliance required. | No; missing SSN requires strict compliance, invalidating the notice. |
| Whether omission of the ex-husband’s SSN invalidates the notice under expressio unius. | Omission was harmless; notice still informed of obligations. | Omission defeats validity as SSN is mandatory. | Omission of SSN renders notice invalid; strict compliance required. |
| Whether the signature requirement under 20(c)(11) affects validity. | Plaintiff argues signature not essential for validity. | Signature/substitute info not required for validity under 20(c)(11). | Signature/printed contact info do not affect validity; other info does. |
| Effect of invalid notice on plaintiff’s claims under 28/35. | Even with defect, defendant bore obligation to withhold. | Invalid notice never triggered withholding obligation. | Invalid notice defeats the basis for liability; complaint dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of McFadden, 2011 IL App (2d) 101157 (Ill. App. 2d 2011) (statutory interpretation and de novo review discussed)
- Sutton v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 2012 IL App (1st) 122528 (Ill. App. 1st 2012) (‘shall’ with penalties implies strict compliance)
- Samuelson v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 2012 IL App (1st) 120581 (Ill. App. 1st 2012) (strict vs substantial compliance analysis)
- Holly v. Montes, 231 Ill. 2d 153 (Ill. 2008) (interpretation of mandatory provisions; use of ‘shall’)
- In re Marriage of Gulla, 234 Ill. 2d 414 (Ill. 2009) (distinguishes cases about notice validity vs. conflict of laws; not controlling here)
- Plock v. Board of Education of Freeport Sch. Dist. No. 145, 396 Ill. App. 3d 960 (Ill. App. 2009) (expressio unius exclusio alterius principle in statutory construction)