*1 $1,000 comments in this case indicate the award of maintenance to compensate Patricia intended was her the trial court’s decision jurisdiction pension. light reserve on Robin’s our foregoing findings jurisdiction that the decision to reserve pension over Robin’s incorrect, the trail maintenance court’s award is vacated. After the division of Robin’s pension, the trial court should reevaluate using whether maintenance should be awarded set factors forth in section We 504. note courts consider several under factors awarding maintenance, 504 when holding and our here is limited to the extent that after pension, the allocation of Robin’s the court should statutory reevaluate its award in light factors.
III. CONCLUSION Therefore, reasons, foregoing for the we reverse the trial court’s jurisdiction pension reservation over Robin’s and remand portionment of this property, marital affirm the trial findings court’s regard dissipation fees, and attorney and vacate the order of maintenance. We affirm. otherwise in part, part;
Affirmed reversed vacated cause remanded with directions.
STEIGMANN, PJ., J., APPLETON, concur. GRUCHOW, WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellee, ISAAC C. v. JESSE
State, Illinois, Appellant. State Defendant
Fourth District No. 4 - 06-0898 Argued August 22, May Opinion filed 2007. 2007. *2 COOK, J., concurring. specially General, (Gary Feinerman, Madigan, Attorney Chicago S. Solicitor
Lisa General, Attorney General, (argued), Assistant and Laura M. Wunder counsel), appellant. for Gates, & (argued), M. Wise
Frederick J. Schlosser and Todd Goebel Schlosser, EC., Springfield, appellee. opinion of the court:
JUSTICE KNECHT delivered Defendant, Secretary (Secretary), appeals the of State Jesse White mandating Sangamon County circuit court he issue order of Carolina, Gruchow, a letter clear- plaintiff, Isaac C. a resident of North Secretary argues driving appeal, Illinois record. On Gruchow’s (Code) (625 208(b)(4) of the ILCS Vehicle 5/6— (West 2004)) 208(b)(4) Gruchow, giving him who has prohibits from (DUI) convictions, driving privileges driving-under-the-influence four agree and reverse the circuit court’s order. for life. We
I. BACKGROUND In time, driver in Illinois. At one Gruchow was a licensed in Illinois for DUI. He refused Gruchow arrested November January granted supervision. the chemical test and was court driving privileges were revoked Illinois driver’s license and Gruchow’s had DUI DUIs. Gruchow later two after he was convicted of two other July 2003. August 2001 and convictions South Carolina Gruchow, Carolina, now a resident of North applied to the Secretary for clearance of his Illinois record and reinstatement his sought Gruchow might relief so he in North Carolina. South Carolina issued Gru- chow such a letter.
After hearing on Gruchow’s application, Illinois the hearing of- ficer found requirements Gruchow satisfied the for reinstatement and recommended reinstatement of his full driving privileges. The Secretary rejected the recommendation and denied peti- Gruchow’s tion. noted Gruchow’s four DUI convictions and 208(b)(4) concluded under section of the Code ILCS 5/6— 208(b)(4) (West 2004)), Gruchow eligible was not for reinstatement of Illinois driving privileges during his lifetime. petitioned the circuit court for administrative review of decision. The court concluded the Secretary erred in
denying reinstatement of Gruchow’s full driving privileges. The court found Gruchow satisfied requirements for reinstatement ordered the Secretary to issue a clearance letter to Gruchow. appeal
This followed.
II. ANALYSIS appeal, On contends prohibits section 6— him reinstating Gruchow’s disagrees. *3 First, Gruchow maintains section 6—704 of the Code ILCS 5/6— (West 2004)), 704 part of the Driver License Compact, him, applies to seeking nonresident reinstatement of privileges. Second, 208(b)(4) Gruchow contends prohibits section issuing him a driver’s license, but allows
beginWe governing review, with the standard of par- an issue the dispute. ties contends his decision involved a mixed question of law fact and should be for clear reviewed error. Gru- chow appeal contends the issue purely question on is of law to be reviewed de novo.
A question requires mixed consideration of whether the agency properly applied administrative undisputed the facts to law. Service, AFM Messenger See Department Inc. v. Employment Secu of (2001). rity, 380, 391, 198 Ill. 2d 272, 763 case, N.E.2d 279 This however, present does not a mixed question of law and fact. The issue is not whether the Secretary properly applied the law to the facts. The issue appeal on is the Secretary correctly interpreted law, particularly sections 6—704 and 6—208. Such matters involve statu tory construction and are reviewed Marriage de novo. See In re of (2003). Waller, 743, 747, 339 App. 674, Ill. 3d 791 N.E.2d 678
483
legislature’s
construing a statute is to ascertain
Our task in
Williams, Schmid v.
Public Aid ex rel.
Department
intent.
of
(2003).
indicator”
416,
surest
553, 556,
“[T]he
418
App. 3d
784 N.E.2d
Williams,
Ill.
3d
language of the statute.
of such intent is the
statute,
language
of the
556,
at 418. In addition to
at
784 N.E.2d
law,
problems
to be
“the reason for the
this court should consider
remedied,
sought.”
Corp.
General Motors
objects
purposes
and the
Board,
State
Illinois Motor VehicleReview
v.
(2007).
the mean
If
is
debate as to
N.E.2d
there
reasonable
Secretary’s
statutes,
deference to the
give
this court will
of these
Motors,
We with the of the statutes. Section 6— “may states a of four or more DUIs not make convicted 208(b)(4)(West 2004). plication a license.” 625 ILCS 5/6 — argues first subsection seeking him. maintains because he is a nonresident reinstate driving privileges, part ment of of the Driver License Compact, applies. Gruchow also contends to the extent reconciled, 6—704 section 6—704 cannot be supersedes and controls. 704(2) following: states the
“Applications Upon application for new licenses. for a license to drive, party in a state shall ascertain applicant held, whether the has ever or is the holder a license authority by any party licensing drive issued other in state. the state where is made shall not issue a license applicant drive to the if: been applicant
2. The has held such a but the same has reason, if such revoked whole or a violation and terminated, except expiration revocation has not that after the revoked, year one from the date the license was permitted by if The licens- for a new license law. if, ing authority may any applicant a license to refuse to issue *4 investigation, after determines that it will grant person privilege not be safe to to such a motor 704(2)(West public highways.” vehicle on the 625 ILCS 5/6— plain reading A establishes the section does not section 6—704 application and his for reinstatement. Section Gruchow 6—704 to individuals whose out-of-state licenses were revoked and who seek Illinois licenses after those revocations. Gruchow’s Il- linois license Ilhnois, was revoked. He seeks from state,” the “member reinstatement of those Illinois The language of section require 6—704 does not the Secretary to consider request Gruchow’s for reinstatement.
Gruchow cites support no case law to his of section Instead, 6—704. Gruchow a relies on number of cases to establish the supremacy of the Compact Driver License conflicting over state law.
See, e.g.,
Mexico,
554,
Texas v.
New
462 U.S.
77 L. Ed. 2d
103 S. Ct.
(1983);
Hutson,
People
v.
App.
178 Ill.
3d
Gruchow next prevent a 6— nonresident from seeking reinstatement of driving privileges. Gru- plain chow contends the language of section reveals its lifetime applies only ban applications to resident for driver’s licenses. The Secretary maintains term “license” encompasses both the actual document as well privilege as the to drive. 208(b)(4) provides following: “Any permit[,] whose privilege or to drive a mo- highways
tor vehicle on the has been revoked shall not be entitled license, permit[,] to have However, privilege or renewed or restored. (d) person may, except provided as under subsection [slection pursuant for a license 106(i) [slection if the revocation was for a cause which has been (ii) provided removed or following as in the subparagraphs: * * * (4) not make for a license if the person is convicted of committing a fourth or subsequent viola- [slection tion of provision 11—501 of this Code or a similar ordinance, Code, [slection local [slection 11—401 of this 9—3 of the Criminal Code of or a combination of these or offenses similar of local ordinances or similar out-of-state of- 208(b)(4)(West2004). fenses.” 625 ILCS 5/6— Gruchow focuses on the word “license” and a maintains there is distinction a physical “privilege between “license” and drive.” support argument, of his emphasizes section 6—208’s refer prerequisites ence to section which establishes the for obtain (West 2004). ing physical “license.” See 625 ILCS 5/6—106 emphasizes “license,” also “permit,” statute’s differentiation of
485 establishing the intent to ban the issuance “privilege,” or as of driv in and not the reinstatement subsection 6— of the Il ing privileges for nonresidents. Gruchow also cites concerning petitioners for driv linois Administrative Code out-of-state (see §1001.430(k), amended 28 92 Ill. Adm. Code as privileges (eff. 2004); Ill. Adm. Code Reg. September 12168-69 92 2003)). provisions, §1001.485 (Conway CD-ROM June These Greene and contends, petitioners out-of-state privileges he treat separately. licenses for residents equally to those Secretary
The maintains section 6—208 nonresidents, those, including and who who seek a license to drive Secretary In driving privileges. support, seek reinstatement of referring in to emphasizes language begins by section 6— maintains such privilege Secretary both a license and the to drive. convictions, language four DUI shows those with or more hcense, seeking reinstatement of or a not drive Illinois; in and this is consistent with the purpose of section 6—208. also maintains the Code states a “driver’s hcense” “privilege any
includes the person to drive a motor vehicle whether or not permit” “[a]ny holds a valid license or (3) (West driving privilege.” 138(2), nonresident’s 625 ILCS 5/1 — 2004). According Secretary, to the because the Code defines “hcense” 208(b)(4)’s way, in this barring one convicted of four or applying seeking more DUIs from for a hcense also bars one from driving privileges. contends, As the definition Code’s of driver’s hcense hcense, physical includes the as well as See 625 (West 2004). 208(b)(4), ILCS Turning to section we 5/1 —138 using construe it this defined term. See State Farm Mutual Automobile 240, 244, Insurance Co. v. Universal Underwriters 182 Ill. 2d Group, (1998) (“It 695 N.E.2d is well established that when a statute uses, according defines the terms it those terms must be construed to act”). definitions contained begins by noting Section 6—208 those individuals whose hcense or driving privilege has been entitled either revoked are not to have may apply renewed. It then states these for a hcense in individuals (b)(4), however, certain circumstances. ability Subsection hmits the these they individuals to make an for a hcense to drive if Applying were convicted of four or more DUIs. the Code’s definition of “hcense,” it prohibits reinstating driving privi- is clear section 6—208 leges Moreover, to individuals convicted of four or more DUIs. we note *** this complies “strong public policy construction with Illinois’s
keep White, repeat drunk drivers off the roads.” Girard v. 356 Ill. (2005) 11, 19, (concluding 826 N.E.2d “Illinois has an in preventing interest individuals convictions from obtaining driving privileges”). addition, the Illinois Administrative Code’s definition of supports
“reinstatement” our construction of section 6—208. Under 1001.410, Title “reinstatement” is defined as “the restora tion privileges entitling petitioner apply for a new Adm. §1001.410, driver’s license.” 92 Ill. as amended (eff. Reg. 12123, September According 208(b)(4), Gruchow, offender, DUI apply four-time not for a license in He Illinois. is not cannot be “entitled” to Reinstatement, new driver’s license our state. the relief Gruchow seeks, granted. cannot be
Gruchow’s reliance on section 6—208’s reference to section 6—106 does not convince us otherwise. Gruchow maintains the inclusion of requirements obtaining physical which lists the for (see (West 2004)), 625 ILCS legislature’s evidences the 5/6—106 intent to limit section only those who physical disagree license. significance We with Gruchow over the the reference to this section. Given the Code’s definition of “license” 208(b), and the in section find the we reference to section only provisions licensing 6—106 is to assure the for are and followed limit physical not to the use of the term “license” to license. upon The Illinois Administrative Code sections which Gruchow 208(b). relies do not alter the bar of section Gruchow relies on two 1001.430(k) of Title and Ill. Adm. sections 92: sections 1001.485 (eff. §1001.430(k), Reg. 12123, Ill. by as amended 1, 2004); September (Conway §1001.485 92 Ill. Adm. Code Greene CD- 2003)). 1001.430(k) ROM June lists for the driving privileges “reinstatement of the Illinois certain for out-of-state petitioners,” and limits its application to drivers who were not licensed in Illinois at the time of the revocation. 92 Ill. Adm. Code (eff. §1001.430(k)(l)(B), Reg. as amended September procedures Section 1001.485 discusses the requirements upon a reinstatement based issuance of a driver’s license a state that is a member of the Driver License (Conway §1001.485 CD-ROMJune Compact. 92 Ill. Adm. Code Greene maintains these sec- applies Neither section to Gruchow. Gruchow distinguish residents’ tions show the administrative rules between applications plications for driver’s licenses nonresidents’ so, neither While these sections do changes diverges from the Code’s definition of “license” or lifetime 6—208’s ban. interpretation prevent Our of section does North not applying Carolina from eligibil its own laws to determine Gruchow’s ity for a North Carolina license. Our does not control what North Carolina decide if Gruchow for a driver’s Gruchow, license in that It simply having state. means convictions, may not have driving privileges his Illinois restored and (Con §1040.70 cannot receive a clearance letter. See 92 Adm. Code 2003) way Greene (defining “any CD-ROM June “clearance letter” as *** document received from another state that an individual verifying state”). has had in that restored his/her
III. CONCLUSION stated, For the judgment reasons we reverse the circuit court’s reinstate the decision. Reversed; Secretary’s decision reinstated.
STEIGMANN, EJ., concurs. COOK, specially JUSTICE concurring: The Driver Compact, License to which party, Illinois is a addresses the effect one give state must to the actions of another state. If one license, state revokes a driver’s thereby prevented is the driver receiving a license in any state until the revocation is cancelled in the extreme, first state? At the other if one state revokes a driver’s ignore other states that revocation and issue a license whenever they choose to? *7 704(2) is found in answer of the Code. A lifetime states,
revocation one state is binding only period on other but year. say one That is not to that other states must issue “¡AJfter year expired. after one has expiration year of one from revoked, the date the license was 704(2) (West if permitted by a new license 625 ILCS law.” 5/6 — words, law,” permitted by “if mean if the new license permitted
would be
under the law of the state where the
is
Girard,
made,
not the state where the license was revoked.
Vargason,
State v.
523;
3d at
App. 3d at
Fourth District No. 4 - 06-0900
Opinion July filed 2007.