Court Opinion

ID: 9738583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:57:17.114693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:07.137187
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COOK, specially concurring: Justice Turner’s special concurrence/dissent characterizes our holding in Vernon as dicta, a casual discussion we had no reason to make, because the parties had not raised the issue. However, the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and a court has the duty to assess its subject-matter jurisdiction, regardless of whether the parties question it. Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 325, 333-34, 770 N.E.2d 177, 184 (2002) (argument “implicates the subject matter jurisdiction of the circuit court”); Jackson v. Alverez, 358 Ill. App. 3d 555, 558, 831 N.E.2d 1159, 1162 (2005). Belleville Toyota cited In re Marriage of Mitchell, 181 Ill. 2d 169, 692 N.E.2d 281 (1988), and Vernon with approval, in fact quoting the above language from Vernon. Belleville, 199 Ill. 2d at 341, 770 N.E.2d at 188. The Vernon holding was not dicta. It was our duty to consider our subject-matter jurisdiction even though the issue was not raised by the parties. Did the legislature intend that courts have no power to order payors of maintenance to obtain life insurance? The dissent discusses language in the child support portion of the Dissolution Act, the presumption that deletion of language from previous legislation manifests an intent to change the law, and the laws of other states. The best evidence of legislative intent, however, is the language used in the statute itself, which must be given its plain and ordinary meaning. What did the legislature mean when it said that “the obligation to pay future maintenance is terminated upon the death of either party”? 750 ILCS 5/510(c) (West 2006). The language says nothing about life insurance. Payments on a life-insurance policy are not made after death. There is nothing inherently wrong with requiring life insurance in maintenance cases, as is shown by the fact that many other states allow it. Illinois clearly allowed requiring life insurance under the prior statute. Dissolution of marriage cases are complicated and may involve very diverse asset and income situations. The legislature did not attempt to spell out exactly how these cases should be handled. The legislature gave the courts broad powers to deal with these situations, and did not intend courts to act only to the extent the legislature made specific provision therefor.