Winders v. People
45 N.E.3d 289
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Donald L. Winders had two prior criminal convictions (1982 aggravated battery with a firearm; 1989 battery) and applied for a FOID card in 2013; the Illinois Department of State Police (Department) denied the application based on his criminal history.
- Winders petitioned the La Salle County circuit court for relief under section 10(c) of the FOID Act; the State did not object and the court ordered the Department to issue a FOID card.
- The Department learned of the court order only after it was entered and then filed a petition to intervene (735 ILCS 5/2-408(a)) and a section 2-1401 petition for relief from judgment, arguing federal law barred Winders from possessing firearms and the court had not considered that issue.
- Winders moved to strike the Department’s filings, asserting procedural defects (including absence of an affidavit supporting the 2-1401 petition).
- The circuit court denied intervention and the 2-1401 petition, reasoning the intervention was untimely, the 2-1401 petition was procedurally insufficient, and (mis)interpreting Coram as allowing state courts to remove federal firearm prohibitions.
- The Department appealed; the Appellate Court reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion in denying intervention and misapplied legal standards regarding timeliness, the required showing for intervention, and interpretation of Coram.
Issues
| Issue | Winders' Argument | Department's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Department could timely intervene after the court ordered issuance of a FOID card | Winders relied on the final order and procedural posture to oppose late intervention | Department argued it lacked notice of the action until entry of the order and therefore intervention after judgment was timely to protect its interests | Intervention was timely under controlling precedent; trial court abused its discretion in finding it untimely |
| Whether the Department had sufficient interest and inadequate representation to intervene as of right under § 2-408(a) | Winders and State took the position that relief was proper; State did not object | Department asserted a unique, concrete interest as the FOID administrator and that the State did not represent the Department’s separate compliance interests | Department demonstrated sufficient interest and inadequacy of existing representation; intervention as of right should have been allowed |
| Whether a procedural defect in the accompanying § 2-1401 petition (e.g., lack of affidavit) justified denial of intervention | Winders argued procedural defects warranted striking the petition and supporting intervention denial | Department contended § 2-408(e) only requires attaching the initial pleading, not its merits or perfection | Court erred: § 2-408(e) does not permit denial of intervention simply because the accompanying pleading might be procedurally deficient |
| Whether Coram permits a state court to remove a federal firearm prohibition, affecting the merits | Winders relied on Coram to argue state relief was available | Department argued Coram (as later interpreted) does not allow state courts to override federal prohibitions | Trial court misinterpreted Coram; subsequent appellate authority holds state courts cannot remove federal firearm prohibitions |
Key Cases Cited
- Freesen, Inc. v. County of McLean, 258 Ill. App. 3d 377 (construing § 2-408 liberally for intervention)
- Soyland Power Cooperative, Inc. v. Illinois Power Co., 213 Ill. App. 3d 916 (lists timeliness, interest, and adequacy of representation as intervention factors)
- Citicorp Savings of Illinois v. First Chicago Trust Co. of Illinois, 269 Ill. App. 3d 293 (intervention after judgment can be timely to protect intervenor interests)
- Schwechter v. Schwechter, 138 Ill. App. 3d 602 (party seeking post-judgment intervention must explain lack of earlier participation; lack of prior knowledge can make intervention timely)
- In re Marriage of Kueteman, 273 Ill. App. 3d 77 (intervention after judgment may be allowed when necessary to protect intervenor rights)
- Williams v. Tazewell County State’s Attorney’s Office, 348 Ill. App. 3d 655 (addressing whether a governmental agency is a necessary party)
- In re Estate of Barth, 339 Ill. App. 3d 651 (review standard: trial court’s intervention decision is discretionary)
- People ex rel. Birkett v. City of Chicago, 202 Ill. 2d 36 (intervenor must have interest greater than general public to intervene)