Court Opinion

ID: 9523486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:43:02.186402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:07.477991
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE DIERINGER dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion for the following reasons. As stated in the majority opinion, the plaintiff obtained a divorce from the defendant by publication on June 28, 1956, and was awarded custody of the couple’s 5-year old son. No provision was made in the decree for child support for the obvious reason the court had no jurisdiction over the defendant, and such support orders are in personam. Fifteen years later, on May 27, 1971, the defendant was served with a summons and a copy of the original complaint for divorce. There was no petition for the support of the son, who had graduated from high school and was married and working. This was the first time the court had jurisdiction over the defendant in person. At a hearing on July 7, 1971, it appeared the defendant owns a home in Cook County, pays real estate taxes, is a registered voter, has a home telephone, and drives an automobile. The plaintiff admitted that approximately two years after the entry of the decree, the defendant’s mother visited with her and that she (the plaintiff) spoke to the defendant; that she saw his automobile; and she knew he was in the jurisdiction but she made no effort to contact him regarding support money for the child. She was working and elected to raise the child herself. Defendant, Mr. Gill, is remarried and has a family. After the hearing on July 7, 1971, the trial court entered a nunc pro tunc order dating back to June 28, 1956, the date of the entry of the default decree, and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $13,520 for child support from June 28,1956, to June 28, 1969, the date upon which the boy graduated from high school. In my opinion the court was without jurisdiction to enter a nunc pro tunc order against the defendant. The Supreme Court of Illinois stated in In re Estate of Bird (1951), 410 Ill. 390: “A nunc pro tunc order has been defined as ‘an entry now for something previously done, made to make the record speak now what was actually done then.’ [Citation.] It is a device to supply an omission to enter of record an order actually made, but omitted from the record by the clerk.” Applying this definition to the instant case, it becomes readily apparent the order of July 7, 1971, was not to supply an omission in the record of the decree of 1956, but rather to create, as of the time of the entry of the decree, a provision which was not in fact made and which could not in law have been made. As was observed by the Appellate Court in Briggs v. Briggs (1939), 299 Ill.App. 577: ‘It is clear that the court was without authority or jurisdiction to enter a nunc pro tunc judgment as there was nothing to even suggest a judgment in the proceedings of the court to which the nunc pro tunc order refers. Indeed the record affirmatively shows that no judgment was entered or intended. In Wiggins v. Union Trust Company, 266 Ill.App. 560, we said: ‘The office of an order nunc pro tunc is only to supply omission in the record of an order which was really made but omitted from the record. If an order is actually made by the court, but there is a failure to enter it, the court may correct the mistake in failing to enter the order, and make the record show the order which the court actually made as of the time it was made. No court has a right to create an order by that method or to supply an order which was never in fact made. A nunc pro tunc order cannot be made to supply an omission to make an order, but only an omission in the record of the order.’ ” The route by which the trial court reached its destination is so palpably contrary to all recognized procedure that its order of July 7, 1971, is void and should be reversed. Furthermore, child support is designed and required for immediate support of the child and, absent an order to pay, there is no authority invested in the court to retroactively compute child support and enter a judgment for the amount so computed as if it were liquidated damages. In the instant case the trial judge allowed $20 a week, retroactively, for thirteen years, and arrived at a figure of $13,520. At the time the order was entered the child had been emancipated, was married, and was working, and there was no immediate need for child support, neither could it be had. That the trial court was confused over his authority to enter personam orders against the defendant prospectively only is borne out by the record where, in colloquy between the defendant’s attorney and the court, it is said: “The Court: This judge sitting here today does have jurisdiction. Mr. Camodeca: Prospective jurisdiction. The Court: I have jurisdiction, everything is prospective. Mr. Camodeca: Your application is retroactive, your Honor. The Court: Well, no; it will be prospective. He will prospectively pay her $20.00 a week for thirteen years; with $1,040.00 for a year, it would be $13,520.00.” It is quite obvious the trial court entered a retroactive order and ordered prospective payment, which does not give him jurisdiction to enter the retroactive order. He arrived at the amount of money by simply asking the plaintiff, Mrs. Gill, how much it cost her per week, during all this period of time, to raise the boy. This, of course, was entirely wrong, because he had no authority to enter a money judgment in this manner. I am convinced the doctrine of laches applied, because the plaintiff made no effort to bring the defendant into court for fifteen years. It was an abuse of the discretion of the court in denying that the doctrine of laches applied. Its existence depends on whether, under all the circumstances of a particular case, a plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to institute proceedings before he did. (Bowman v. Armour and Co. (1959), 17 Ill.2d 43; McCartney v. McCartney (1956), 8 Ill.2d 494.) It is, unlike the statute of limitations, not a mere matter of time but principally a question of the inequity of permitting the claim to be enforced. (McKey v. McKean (1943), 384 Ill. 112.) Laches is, therefore, such neglect or omission to assert a right, taken in conjunction with a lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, as will operate to bar relief in equity. Carlson v. Carlson (1951), 409 Ill. 167. As observed in McDearmon v. Burnham (1895), 158 Ill. 55, referring to delay covering a period of almost fifteen years: “When a court of equity is asked to lend its aid in the enforcement of a demand that has become stale, there must be some cogent and weighty reasons presented why it has been permitted to become so. Good faith, conscience, and reasonable diligence of the party seeking relief are the elements that call a court of equity into activity. In the absence of these elements the court remains passive, and declines to extend its relief or aid. It has always been the policy to discountenance laches and neglect.” I am concerned over the application of the majority opinion in the instant case because I anticipate the opening of floodgates of decrees, entered upon publication, if the plaintiff is allowed to come into court fifteen years later, or twenty or twenty-five years later, whenever she takes a notion, and obtain a judgment against her former husband, as in the instant manner. I think she should be required to exercise diligence in seeking support money when it is needed, otherwise she has elected to support the child, as in the instant case, and she should be precluded from asking for retroactive orders for support. I would reverse the order of July 7, 1971.