Yakich v. Aulds
155 N.E.3d 1093
Ill.2020Background
- In 2015 Rosemary Aulds (never-married mother) petitioned under 750 ILCS 5/513 for Charles Yakich (father) to contribute to their adult daughter’s college expenses; a 1997 agreed order between the parties said nothing about college costs.
- At trial both parents and the daughter testified; the court initially ordered each parent to pay 40% and the daughter 20% of prospective college expenses and noted potential equal protection concerns.
- Charles later challenged section 513 as violating the Equal Protection Clause, arguing Kujawinski (71 Ill. 2d 563) was outdated given changes in family structure and that the statute disadvantages unmarried parents by denying them the same input into college choices as married parents.
- The trial court declared section 513 unconstitutional as applied—relying on Curtis v. Kline (Pa.)—and vacated its prior college-expenses order; Rosemary Aulds appealed directly to the Illinois Supreme Court.
- The Illinois Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s judgment for improperly refusing to follow this court’s controlling precedent, dismissed the appeal, and remanded the cause for further proceedings without addressing the statute’s constitutional merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Aulds) | Defendant's Argument (Yakich) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 750 ILCS 5/513 violates the Equal Protection Clause as applied by treating unmarried parents differently regarding college input/expenses | §513 is valid; trial court may order education contributions; Kujawinski upholds statute | §513 discriminates against unmarried parents by denying them input/control over college decisions; Kujawinski is outdated | Trial court erred to declare statute unconstitutional as applied because it failed to follow this court’s precedent; Supreme Court vacated the trial-court judgment and did not reach the constitutional merits |
| Whether a trial court may decline to follow Illinois Supreme Court precedent (Kujawinski) | Lower courts must follow this court’s precedents | Trial court can question continued vitality of precedent given social changes | Lower tribunals may not overrule state supreme-court precedent; they must apply it; only this court may overrule prior decisions |
| Proper remedy when a trial court improperly overrules precedent and vacates an order | Vacatur of unconstitutional order and affirmation of appeal rights | Vacate erroneous judgment and remand for further proceedings | Vacated the trial-court judgment, dismissed the appeal (no opinion on merits), and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Kujawinski v. Kujawinski, 71 Ill. 2d 563 (1978) (Illinois Supreme Court upheld section 513 against an equal protection challenge)
- Curtis v. Kline, 666 A.2d 265 (Pa. 1995) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down similar parental college-contribution statute on equal protection grounds)
- Blumenthal v. Brewer, 2016 IL 118781 (2016) (lower courts are bound to follow Illinois Supreme Court precedent)
- Price v. Phillip Morris, Inc., 2015 IL 117687 (2015) (only this court may overrule its prior decisions)
- Carmichael v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2019 IL 123853 (2019) (vacating lower judgments without expressing an opinion on the merits)
- People v. Bingham, 2018 IL 122008 (2018) (dismissing an appeal after vacating the underlying judgment)