Court Opinion

ID: 9741871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:03:22.406632+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:26.917319
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: I disagree that defendants sustained their burden of proving the child support checks were timely mailed. Section 35(a) of the Support Act provides in part: “The payor shall pay the amount withheld to the State Disbursement Unit within 7 business days after the date the amount would (but for the duty to withhold income) have been paid or credited to the obligor.” 750 ILCS 28/35(a) (West 2002). With respect to payment by mail, the Statute on Statutes, section 1.25, provides in pertinent part: “[A]ny payment of any kind or description required or authorized to be paid to[ ] the State or any political subdivision thereof, by the laws of this State: (1) if transmitted through the United States mail, shall be deemed filed with or received by the State or political subdivision on the date shown by the post office cancellation mark stamped upon the envelope or other wrapper containing it[.]” 5 ILCS 70/ 1.25 (West 2002). The trial court found: “Defendant, in support that his method of mailing complied with 750 ILCS 28/35, did not produce any evidence when the mail was picked up at his private rural mailbox, or that the rural mail carrier had any duty to pick up such mail from Defendant’s private rural mailbox or to forward such mail left in a rural mailbox to the person to whom addressed.” Placing mail in a private rural mailbox does not meet the requirements of section 35(a) of the Support Act or section 1.25 of the Statute on Statutes. In Dunahee, we suggested that pursuant to section 35, “Defendant merely needed to put each week’s check in a stamped envelope addressed to the appropriate party, and place the envelope in any corner mailbox.” Dunahee, 273 Ill. App. 3d at 209, 652 N.E.2d at 445. In the present case, the trial court found that the evidence presented did not meet the standard suggested in Dunahee. The trial court’s judgment should be affirmed.