Court Opinion

ID: 9884804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:14:41.20652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:02.179542
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Schaeeee, dissenting: A brief statement of the course of the case in this court is essential to an understanding of what the opinion of the court holds and what it does not hold. An opinion was adopted at the March, 1958, term. That opinion held that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter the decree of divorce and that the decree was therefore absolutely void. Chief Justice Davis dissented from that opinion and I concurred in his dissent. Pursuant to leave granted amici curiae presented suggestions in support of the petition for rehearing. Those suggestions were directed primarily at the adverse effect of the court’s opinion upon the stability of real-estate titles. They pointed out, as did the dissenting opinion, the many cases in which judgments and decrees entered in statutory proceedings have been protected from collateral attack. See, e.g., Cobe v. Guyer, 237 Ill. 516. The petition for rehearing was denied, but at the same time the opinion was modified so1 that the holding that the divorce decree was void for want of jurisdiction was eliminated. This basic modification eliminated the point to which the original dissent was directed. The present opinion stands upon the narrow ground that there was error on the face of the record in the divorce case that could be reached by a petition in the nature of a bill of review under section 72 of the Civil Practice Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1957, chap, no, par. 72.) Such a motion must be presented within two years, and the present opinion therefore materially reduces the possibility that children will be illegitimatized and real-estate titles upset. But I am still of the opinion that the judgment of the Appellate Court was correct. I do not agree that the record in the divorce case shows on its face that the decree was erroneous. The complaint for divorce alleged and the decree found “That defendant has been guilty of habitual drunkenness for a period of two years and upwards subsequent to the intermarriage of the plaintiff and defendant and prior to the filing of her Complaint for Divorce herein.” The complaint also alleged “That on, to-wit: December 23, 1953, at Chicago, Illinois, this plaintiff was lawfully joined in marriage to William S. Collins.” The decree found “That the plaintiff and defendant were lawfully joined in marriage on, to-wit: December 23, 1953.” Neither the complaint nor the decree states the date of the marriage with precision. In each instance the date of the marriage is stated under a videlicit, the very purpose of which is to avoid a positive statement. (Brown v. Berry, 47 Ill. 175, 177.) To invalidate the decree the court disregards the positive averment, and relies on the equivocal one that contradicts it. I think that the equivocal one should be disregarded. The point is illustrated in Guschnor v. Keith, 9 Ill. App. 416. There the plaintiff sued to recover a loss on a fire insurance policy. The original policy was issued June 30, 1869, for a period of one year. The complaint alleged that thereafter the insurance company “agreed to continue said policy of insurance in force for one year from the date of the expiration of said original policy, to wit: from the thirtieth day of June, 1871, at noon; * * The loss occurred on October 9, 1871. The court said: “The only question is, as to how far the averment that the renewal was for one year from the expiration of the original policy, is to be regarded as qualified or controlled by the subsequent statement of a date, under a videlicit. The rule in relation to the use of the videlicit, as laid down by Lord Hobart in Stukeley v. Butler, Hob. 168, and followed by all the later authorities, is, that it is to particularize that which is general before, and to explain that which is indifferent, doubtful or obscure; but it must neither be contrary to the premises, nor increase nor diminish the precedent matter. See Dakin’s case, 3 [2] Wms. Saund. note and authorities there cited; 1 Chitty’s Plead. 317, note. In Blackwell v. The Board of Justices, [Ind.] 2 Blackf. 143, it is held that a statement of a date under a videlicit, which is inconsistent with a preceding averment, must be rejected. See also, Vail v. Lewis, [N.Y.] 4 Johns. 450; Dicken v. Smith, [Ky.] 1 Littell, 209. It follows then, that in this case, the statement, under a videlicit of the 30th day of June, 1871, as the day upon which the term covered by the renewal certificate, began to run, must be disregarded.” Even if the legal effect of the form of allegation that the plaintiff chose to use is disregarded, the most that can be said from an examination of the record is that there are contradictory statements as to how long the parties had been married. I see no reason for resolving that contradiction against the validity of the decree. The normal presumptions dictate a contrary result. Nor is the plaintiff’s case helped by considering her attack upon the decree as a motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis, which would permit consideration of the matters extrinsic to the record. She fails to satisfy the basic condition for relief by way of coram nobis. “It is essential to the availability of coram nobis or coram vobis that the mistake of fact relied upon for relief was unknown to the applicant at the time of the trial, and could not by the exercise of reasonable diligence have been discovered by him in time to have been presented to the court. * * 30A Am. Jur., Judgments, par. 743. Moreover, it seems clear to me that the plaintiff is barred on two grounds from attacking the divorce decree. The first ground concerns the plaintiff’s conduct after the divorce decree. Her petition under section 72 makes it clear that she accepted the benefits of the decree. She did so by accepting the property settlement that accompanied it, and by remarrying. The opinion rejects this ground because it was not explicitly pleaded by the defendants. No such contention was made by the plaintiff in this court or in the Appellate Court. Not only is the position of the majority highly technical; it is legally unsound. Many decisions of this court have pointed out that the ordinary rules of pleading do not apply to cases involving marital relations, because of the potential interests of minor children and because of the effect of such cases upon the public morals. (Ollman v. Ollman, 396 Ill. 176, 181; Johnson v. Johnson, 381 Ill. 362; People ex rel. Healy v. Case, 241 Ill. 279.) Those decisions are applicable here. Since this court has now receded from the position that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enter the decree of divorce, it follows that the superior court’s decree which set aside the plaintiff’s subsequent marriage to' Haglund was erroneous. The record does not show whether she acquiesced in that proceeding or resisted it; in any event she did not appeal. The plaintiff’s petition to set aside her decree of divorce showed on its face that her first husband, William S. Collins, was already dead when the petition was filed. No question of her status as a wife was involved. All that she sought was an interest in his property. Upon that ground alone many courts have refused to permit an attack upon a divorce decree by the party who procured it. 17 Am. Jur., Divorce and Separation, par. 530. The second ground of estoppel concerns the plaintiff’s conduct in procuring the divorce decree. That decree is based upon her complaint, in which she alleged that her husband had been an habitual drunkard for more than two years, and upon her testimony to the same effect. “It is the rule in this State that where one successfully invokes the jurisdiction of a court he cannot question such jurisdiction in a subsequent proceeding. Yockey v. Marion, 269 Ill. 342; Sullivan v. People, 224 id. 468; Fahnestock v. Gilham, 77 id. 637; Bates v. Williams, 43 id. 494.” (Hopkins v. Gifford, 309 Ill. 363, 370.) It is also' the rule that one who invites or induces error cannot thereafter complain of it. (Henry v. Metz, 382 Ill. 297, 306; Kellner v. Schmidt, 328 Ill. 426; Clemson v. State Bank of Illinois, 1 Scam. 45.) I am unable to determine from the opinion of the court why it is that these established principles are not applied in this case. Certainly the interest of the State in matrimonial affairs can not support the result that the court reaches. The State is not an indiscriminate partisan, available to be enlisted on one side or the other according to the result desired. Its voice is the voice of the public conscience, and in this case it cannot speak on behalf of the plaintiff. Mr. Chiee Justice Davis concurs in this dissenting opinion.