Court Opinion

ID: 9720339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:26:48.907461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:16.235262
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE CAHILL, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The reasoning in McKernan v. Gregory, rejected by the majority, is grounded in the only public policy that could have inspired the legislature to enact Public Act 86—966 (Pub. Act 86—966, elf. October 1, 1990): to shield a primary residence from the creditors of one spouse. We need not appeal to Dickensian tales of small children hurled into the winter night by the rapacious creditors of one profligate parent to lend weight to legislative intent. It is enough that the legislature thought it was good idea. I would follow McKernan and affirm the trial court.