reverse the second district in the trial court and find that jennifer schultz had a cause of action under twenty eight thirty five of the income withholding act when performance lighting was properly served with a notice to withhold that inform them of how much money to withhold what employee to withhold it from and where to send the money i would begin with what i think is a practical on logic going alice's and that is that if there is an omission or an error in a notice to withhold there's probably one hundred percent chance that that was a mistake when there is a failure to pay upon receipt of a notice to withhold the chances are better than even that the failure to pay is purposeful more than that the legislature has stated but the statutory mandate no i don't think so at all i think what it did was they were shows as a reaction to the miller decision by this court and that the and everyone i was the penalties can be harsh but i think that the legislature one thing they did as a damn sure your honour's are aware is they kept each penalty on the payment but that's a substantive term that would not be of a statue that would not be applied retroactively to this case the other aspect of it that justice thomas raises is that all they did was change the conditions preceding and to filing the cause of action but you can't apply that to jennifer short either and it certainly doesn't mean that the court the legislature didn't intend in the first place that a an omission that didn't affect the ability of the  employer to pay wouldn't raise a cause of action all the legislature did now is give them a second chance or position basically is that because they noticed deficiencies were the minimum well they were security numbers and court documents because of the problems that are arisen with regard to identity theft but the main reason it's de minimus is that even if performance playing didn't have  number which surely they did the lack of that information does not affect their ability to pay the child support and the intent of the legislature was that child support be paid paid promptly and be paid in compliance with a notice to withhold let us say that sally like her did put in the social security number but she had a digit wrong would that mean that performance lighting then could say well you know we didn't have to pay because you made a mistake and that my question would be if you were here the last case or listening to what somebody one of the attorneys indicated we decide every case on a case by very possible and those going to without a social security number what i have first of all i don't think you can put the social security number on it anymore but second of all the laws at the time that point in time now the legislature is effect of i think some time in two thousand and twelve that if you don't get the money an obligation to before you and whether the mistake is made by an attorney or it's made by a pro se litigant i don't think it makes a difference i think the court of this case is that we have a strict liability statute  and that strict liability statute is a reflection of the intent of the legislature that child support is to be collected is to be collected promptly is to be paid upon notice to employ a lawyer of the information necessary to make the payments i think that that intent is manifested by the clear language of the statute and by the miller opinion which this court  enforce that intent and to read into the statute that the legislature intended that somebody wouldn't get paid the child support that in many cases they desperately need and in some cases transfer the burden to the taxpayers of the state of on life it's not received because there was a mistake the social security number the social security number was missing or any other piece of information that might have the missing from the notice to withhold that wouldn't affect the ability of the employer pay that legislation intended then well then it's no longer so compelling to collect the child support i think that's and that that actually was a very good thing as we're solving lacky case where there wasn't where there was a penalty and the defendant complained that well i didn't know that the penalties could include this and the court said well  civil penalty and there was you know we had issued previous cases that have been previous decisions and and so today to we are not going to interpret the fact that there's a penalty a civil penalty to mean that every duty of the person who's seeking to walk child support is to properly serve which is there's no question about it here and to inform the employer of how much to withhold from whom to withhold it and where the money has to be sent and and also i think that the good case dealt with what your honor is addressing which is if there is something other than those things i think they do have to be informed of those things and if they're not then you can't apply the lp but the good case says because there was a mistake in the notice and withhold because it was an out of state employee with a different rate of collection and they just gave them the wrong way to collection supports our position in that regard because it involved on blue cross took the position that this guy is not our employees a ton ninety nine haiti and therefore they wrote a letter to  and any just any disagreement that you may have requires you to do something any confusion in which google says any confusion you have human duty to try and resolve it so the person gets paid and any  legislature has imposed in a civil manner and i and i think that too and that's why they weigh the consequences severe and even with the reduced penalties or the cap on the penalties they're still severe so you know it's our position that the errors that were in the notice to withhold are not the met argument in this did not keep performance alighting ex husband who was involved in a divorce case with the apple and jennifer soles at the time that a income withholding order was entered in their divorce in jennifer's complaint she attached to that verified complaint a document which she characterizes as income withholding notice and jennifer's verified complaint she says that that document was served on performance lighting inc and that performance lighting inc were bailed to withhold and pay over income from philip  then asks for statutory penalties under section twenty eight thirty five of income withholding act what i'd like to start with this morning is what's not disputed between the parties from a review of the briefing i think the court will conclude that there is no dispute that the job of the court here is to discern the legislative intent under the income withholding there was also no dispute that the notice or what jennifer characterizes as a notice attached to a verify complaint does not comply and satisfy the requirements of section twenty eight twenty c of the act which sets forth twelve specific requirements of an income withholding no it's specifically jennifer's notice doesn't emit the social security number in the document attached to a very my complaint that a blank for the social security number is not bil additionally jennifer's notice does not contain the terminations date of the withholding obligation in the document attached to jennifer's complaint the blank for the terminations date of the withholding is a little blank and the back page of the notice states that determination date of the withholding obligation is either the eighteenth birthday of the youngest child or that child's graduation from high school so even the last page of the notice longer can be undergone these notices i don't agree with that proposition it and this is the reason why there is nothing in the income withholding act that requires a an income withholding notice to be filed in the public record the income withholding notice needs to be sent to the employer what mr austro is raising is a concern about violating the supreme court's new rule that social security number so might be filed in the public record that concern is an implication that by sending an income withholding notice to a paper or through the mail that's not going to become part of the court file and the income withholding order and o the social security number or can be filed under seal if the court wishes to include that number mr true on a larger question know should the player actually be permitted to ignore the notice of withholding information contained in the notice though not all strict is not strictly complied with and is sufficient to permit the employer not to comply i mean was that not enough notice resent sufficient not to comply at all well the lack of social security and the lack of the age or determination  i think of i hear your honest question i would characterize that as an issue that needs to be reached in the factual dispute stage of the case but in order for the aba be to perfect the cause of action under the statute for a penalty the cause of action needs to be perfected by strict compliance with the statute but if that's the first step to strict compliance i i think that that's clear we the intent of the legislature and we know that by looking at the language used by the legislature there's the employer have the duty when he does receive a notice like that with some of the information missing to actually find out the information in by the employer employee has a social security number and knows the eighteenth birthday of town well that's the reason that i brought up the fact that the notice states that the terminations date is either do they have a duty to find out the information that's missing there's no expression of a duty in the employer to go and look beneath the income withholding notice or what's characterized as an income withholding those and fill in the blanks for th really have the perverse effect of inspiring just the opposite i don't think that a parade of horribles will follow from that instruction and the reason is this we know obviously we see that this that the statutes been amended to require a second notice and to inspire a dialogue between the obloquy and the pay or so that amendment clarif the in the legislature's intent that this isn't supposed to be for kone and we applied to pay yours in order to inspire a first and figure out problems later  would also make the point that in in this case there's this implication that i think is unfounded which is that this problem couldn't be based by the service  a proper notice there's nothing that says once you've sent an improper income withholding notice and you realize that that you're precluded from re sending it and perfecting your right for penalties under the statu so i don't think that construing the statute consistent with the legislative intent is going to have a perverse effect as you characterize it justice they're moving on to some some other issues with the way that this document was served the statute does provide it twenty eight twenty g that the document at court at the time of the filing of an action to enforce i would hold the obligation and if you look at the rest of the statute by agree that we have to read the statute as a whole in order to arrive at legislat intent there is a mechanism by which the obloquy war and contest withholding and reading conjunction with the service requirements the failure to serve pursuant to the statu raises another legislative intent matter of legislative intent which is this is supposed to be a fair process and if we want to avoid the risk of erroneous deprivation of income from a the legislature found fit to say this needs to be served by ordinary mail with a copy of this notice it's reasonable to infer that that's because the ababa or the legislature wants to ensure that that has the obligation to come in or has the opportunity rather to come in and initiate the there's a contest to the withholding now here there's no dispute attached to the verified complaint is a proof of service which is also verified by sort of patient by a what's the big deal is and then given an attorney the same thing it's given it straight to the attorney's client but that's not what the legislature said and when you read the definitions in twenty eight person who owes the duty of support so right in conjunction the legislature is determined datta gore has to be served now it's performances argument that this is enough for the court to determine that the legislative intent is to require compliance by using the mandatory language shall by using shall in conjunction with the requirements to serve if the court wants to go further which i don't think is necessary but the other rules of statutory construction also support this inclusion specifically with respect to twenty eight twenty c and the omission of the obvious signature on the notice that is the only instance under the statute where an omission in the income withholding notice is excuse and the court in the legislature uses the language it shall not affect the validity of the notice the only reasonable inference from that language is that any other omission from the notice renders the notice invalid so if you have an income withholding notice or what someone purports is of income with all the notice sent to someone and it's invalid under the language of the statute then an invalid then that an income withholding those hasn't been served is a statutory remedy income upholding notice doesn't have a meaning in a vacuum it only has a meaning in the context of the statute so you can't perfect a right for the penalties or the remedies there in without complying with the statute further i think mr oestrus conceded and i don't think there's a dispute this is a that there is some dispute between the parties that's in the briefing about whether this is the case but the authority cited in the briefing stands for the proposition that obligate worst the parents have a duty to support their children at the common law there was not a cause of action or a liability that existed for the employers of parents for failure to withhold so i think that that supports the argument that this is an derogation a common law the other where a turnover order was entered and a bank did not comply with the turnover order and contempt proceedings were initiated and if contempt proceedings can be initiated relative to someone subject to a turnover order it analogous to this but the pay or is like the bank but contempt proceedings and ball the inherent authority of a court to enforce its orders that is not what we're talking about here and what we're talking about here is a penalty that's a personal cause of action to the obligate and welcome temper seems made accrue to the benefit of one of the parties to the court those proceedings are about entering a sanction against someone who doesn't comply with the order here we're talking about giving someone an automatic penalty based on a statutory formula and a judgement that personal to that obligate so the rules of construction the argument that this up to this must be strictly construed finally i think we've touched on it but the amendments to the statute i think indicate the legislature's intent that this statute is not meant to be as heavy handedly heavy handedly applied as it's been up to this point the legislature is backing off on the the the application of the statute as is in my opinion it's been fairly kone and and papers are just if you get this notice there are very few the excuses for failure to comply and the legislature is clarifying that it's gone too far so i've cited the case the johnson case which says that subsequent amendments can be indicative of statutory intent so there's a number of reasons why statutory institute mechanisms i think that that federal statute left it up to the legislatures as to exactly how the the withholding schemes were going to be in implemented  it was within this discretion of the illinois legislature to condition behavior and hand specified how the penalties would be applied when one percent of the obviously the states have comply with the federal statute on this but i understood that the circuit health and human services at the time of this transaction that took place the very new members but did not give them poor but only the employee of the right to dispute the income of holy war is that your understanding of the regulations get i guess the other way to answer the question is what can you point to that gave the employer the right to challenge this to say this is the fact that we don't have to turn it over well i think that  we're not contesting we're defending against a cause of action for statutory penalties so as a defendant is challenging the effectiveness of the original order well it's it's challenging the i'm not saying that the court was without jurisdiction to enter an income withholding order but the court's order says you have to serve an income withholding notice and if the ababil he doesn't serve complying here and so when i heard mr also his argument it seemed to be that badly he can make mistakes but the paid or can never make mistakes and if you're going to strictly construe this only strictly construe it in terms of perfect compliance by the pay or excuse failure to comply by the obligat process concerns and unconstitutional vagueness issues we're talking about the form of the notice under statutory remedy here and whether it complies and that has nothing to do with due process it has to do with whether  statutory remedy and those cases all hold the mechanics and statute is strictly construed in terms of notice service and form of the notice so i don't want there to be any confusion that we disagree that this doesn't few things to respond to i don't think that performance lighting can raise a defense that might have been philip schultz as which is a the six hundred dollars a month as long or six hundred dollars or payment is wrong  dollars per payment obligation and i think it's pretty fanciful for performance lying to say well you know we didn't have to do anything because we didn't get the notice mailed to them and maybe had some objections to it  which they wouldn't know at the time they were paying anyway secondly with regard to the social security number this notice to withhold income for support was fi nine and seven and it could and for a lot of reasons in between when the notice withhold is and and their eighteenth birthday for graduation from high school  as to the condition preceding that the legislature has now seem to add i don't think you can apply that retroactively because that's putting an affirmative duty from a statute have you know brief this but i really believe that that was to distinguish the statute from other statutes which require a signature and then there's case law that says it like the mechanic's lien act without that signature you don't have a cause of action and i think it's a breach to say that that meant that if you got the social security number wrong you don't get paid and this actually doesn't apply  i don't i don't think it was to distinguish it from the other aspects of a notice that with all of this distinguish it from other statutes in which it has some sort of signature requirement i also do agree with  berger that it invites noncompliance if you're going to have strict adherence and in fact i think that was somewhat the miller situation was a small business which most businesses are you have employers that are friends  their employees well let's go over this with a fine tooth comb here's on the say here's a little mistake let's not pay so i think that to the federal government and the state legislature meant for child support to be collected officially quickly and with a penalty for not complying with the i notice they gave you the necessary information