Court Opinion

ID: 9732143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:09:28.027312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:24.039769
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN concurring in part and dissenting in part: Upon the authority of In re Estate of Day (1956), 7 Ill.2d 348, 131 N.E.2d 50, the Nevada decree is immune from collateral attack by either party on jurisdictional grounds. Thus, I agree with the majority that the decree is subject to registration in Illinois and is determinative of the marital status. It does not follow, however, that the property-settlement agreement is likewise immune from further judicial inquiry. An Illinois decree incorporating a property-settlement agreement alleged to be fraudulent, collusive and inequitable would be subject to a section 72 proceeding. See: Roth v. Roth (1970), 45 Ill.2d 19, 256 N.E.2d 838; Van Dam v. Van Dam (1961), 21 Ill.2d 212, 171 N.E.2d 594; Wilson v. Wilson (2nd Dist. 1965), 56 Ill.App.2d 187, 205 N.E.2d 636. See also Schwarz v. Schwarz (1963), 27 Ill.2d 140, 188 N.E.2d 673. Thus, I dissent from that portion of the opinion that affirms the dismissal of the complaint in so far as it concerns the property-settlement agreement.