United Transfer v. Lorence
2011 IL App (2d) 110041
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- United filed to register Cook County judgment against Lorence and pursued collection in Du Page County.
- Du Page sheriff levied four vehicles on Feb 24, 2010; no levy order or court order appears in record.
- Sheriff’s inventory (with 'seized' crossed out) lists four Lorence vehicles parked with Unique Recycling/Unique Green logos; Lorence present at inventory.
- Aaron, sole member of Unique Green, claimed ownership and contested the levy; discovery ordered to determine ownership and vehicle history.
- United amended its petition to assert Aaron directed vehicle operation in violation of the levy and a March 4, 2010 court order; Aaron denied knowledge of the levy.
- Trial court dismissed the petition for indirect criminal contempt for lack of an identifying court order and insufficient pleaded conduct; United appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there an order that Aaron violated? | United: levy/order existed; petition alleges violation of a court order. | Aaron: no identifiable order directing conduct; inventory not a levy; no order shown. | Yes, no order identified; petition fails to show a valid order. |
| Did petition sufficiently plead a willful violation of the order? | United: levy prevents interference; knowledge implied from pleadings. | Aaron: petition lacks specifics of mandates and how conduct violated them. | No, petition fails to specify mandates and open, unequivocal conduct. |
| Did the court properly dismiss the petition notwithstanding additional evidentiary issues? | United: adverse admissions should be admissible; core issue is violation of levy. | Aaron: court should not rely on defective petition; subpoenas quashed appropriately. | Court affirmed dismissal; no need to address evidence issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Totten, 118 Ill. 2d 124 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1987) (two elements: existence of an order and willful violation)
- People v. Covington, 395 Ill. App. 3d 996 (Ill. App. 2d Dist., 2009) (constitutional protections; beyond reasonable doubt standard)
- Gaines v. Becker, 7 Ill. App. 3d 315 (Ill. App. 2d Dist., 1880) (open and unequivocal seizure; pen-and-ink levy insufficient)
- Anderson v. Macek, 350 Ill. 135 (Ill. Supreme Court, 1932) (contempt requires clear notice of seizure and obedience; open violation)
- Lindsey, 199 Ill. 2d 460 (Ill. Supreme Court, 2002) (purpose of contempt; indirect contempt defined)
- Pearl v. Wellman, 8 Ill. 311 (Ill. Supreme Court, 1846) (interference with possession concept; old levy principles)