Dale v. Bennett
| Decision Date | 03 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | 4-20-0188 |
| Citation | 2021 IL App (4th) 200188,183 N.E.3d 941,451 Ill.Dec. 484 |
| Parties | Julie Ann DALE, f/k/a Julie Ann Bennett, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Joseph John BENNETT III, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Joshua Emberton and David Daudell, of Law Firm of David Daudell, of Chicago, for appellant.
Susan M. Simone, of Land of Lincoln Legal Aid, of East St. Louis, and Thomas J. Hunter, of Becker, Hoerner & Ysursa, P.C., of Belleville, for appellee.
Tinos D. Diamantatos, of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, of Chicago, Randall M. Levine, of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, of Washington D.C., Christine Raffaele, of Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence, of Springfield, Sarah Megan, of Prairie State Legal Services, Inc., of West Chicago, and Melanie MacBride, of Legal Aid Society of Metropolitan Family Services, Benna Crawford, of Legal Aid Chicago, Denice Wolf Markham, of Life Span Center for Legal Services and Advocacy, Margaret Duval, of Ascend Justice, Elizabeth J. Ptacek, of Greater Chicago Legal Clinic, all of Chicago, and Sasha Drobnick, the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project, of Washington, D.C., for amici curiae.
¶ 1 In April 2013, petitioner, Julie Ann Dale, formerly known as Julie Ann Bennett, filed a petition for an emergency order of protection against respondent, Joseph John Bennett III, pursuant to section 214 of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 (Act) ( 750 ILCS 60/214 (West 2012) ). That same day, the trial court conducted a hearing on the petition at which Dale testified that (1) Bennett's business partner was murdered and (2) Bennett confessed to Dale that he had hired someone to commit the murder. Dale testified that she was in Illinois to give her statement and testify against Bennett, but Bennett had threatened her over the years that if she told anyone, he would hurt her. The trial court granted an emergency order of protection.
¶ 2 In October 2013, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Dale's request for a plenary order of protection. Following closing arguments, the trial court entered a plenary order of protection that contained an expiration date of October 25, 2015.
¶ 3 In September 2015, Dale pro se filed a request for hearing on extending the plenary order of protection for an indefinite amount of time. In support of her request, she asserted that she remained fearful for her safety and the safety of her children.
¶ 4 In November 2015, when the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to extend the plenary order of protection, Bennett failed to appear. The court noted that Bennett had been served with summons, found that he was in default, and extended the plenary order of protection indefinitely. Shortly thereafter, the Manatee County, Florida, sheriff's office served Bennett with a copy of the extended plenary order of protection.
¶ 5 In October 2019, Bennett filed a motion to terminate the plenary order of protection, alleging that the Act does not provide for an indefinite extension of a plenary order of protection. In January 2020, the trial court conducted a hearing on Bennett's motion and denied it, concluding that plenary orders of protection can be extended for an indefinite period.
¶ 6 Bennett appeals, arguing that (1) the Act limits the duration for extensions of plenary orders of protection to two years, (2) the trial court erred by granting Dale's request for an extension of the plenary order because no good cause was shown, and (3) section 220 of the Act is unconstitutionally vague.
¶ 7 We disagree and affirm the trial court's judgment.
¶ 10 In April 2013, Dale filed a petition for an emergency order of protection against Bennett, alleging that Bennett (1) threatened her when he was mad, (2) installed an application on her phone to monitor her activity, (3) would not let her get a job, (4) controlled her access to money, and (5) in April 2009, hurt her wrist and arm and forced her to have sex with him. She also sought protection for her and Bennett's four young children. The trial court granted her request and entered an emergency order of protection. Later that month, the Manatee County, Florida, sheriff's office served a copy of the order on Bennett.
¶ 11 In October 2013, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine whether to grant a plenary order of protection. Dale testified that Bennett's business partner, Tom Fazy, was murdered and that Bennett confessed to Dale that he had hired someone to commit the murder. Tom Fazy was murdered in December 2004 at his office in Midlothian, Illinois. Dale said that in February 2005, Bennett told Dale that he had someone murder Fazy and provided the name of the hit man. Bennett warned Dale that if she told anyone that he was involved in the murder of Fazy, he would hurt her or their then three-year-old son. Bennett and Dale left Illinois and went to Florida. Dale explained that, while in Florida, Bennett frequently threatened her whenever he became angry and would say that she knew what he was capable of doing—that he killed before and had no problem killing again.
¶ 12 Dale testified that, in 2009, Bennett raped her. She did not leave him at the time because she was afraid he would kill her. They separated later in 2009, and Bennett continued to threaten her life.
¶ 13 Dale testified that in February 2013, she found Bennett loading her gun while wearing rubber gloves that he brought home from his work. Dale testified, "And when I asked him why he would need to wear rubber gloves to load my gun that's registered to me, *** he said to me that he never knows what he'll have to use it for." Dale believed that Bennett was either going to use the gun to kill someone else and blame it on her or he would use it to kill her and blame it on suicide. Dale explained that she was fearful for her life.
She further testified that Bennett said he was going to begin selling cocaine and marijuana at his job. She said that while she was visiting Illinois in April 2013, Bennett called her multiple times. Bennett told Dale he had fired an employee that had bought cocaine from Bennett and the former employee was now making threats against Dale, Bennett, and their children. When Dale returned to Florida, Bennett told her that this person was still making threats, but Bennett was not afraid because he had killed before and did not mind killing again.
¶ 14 Dale said that Bennett would scream and yell at the children, throw and break things in front of the children, punch holes in the wall, and locked one child in a room. Dale testified that she believed Bennett's threats that, if she left him, he would kill her.
¶ 15 Dale called Nathaniel Davis to testify at the hearing. Davis testified he was previously a business associate of Bennett's in a real estate investment that went bad. Bennett told Davis the name of the person that Bennett hired to kill his business partner.
¶ 16 Dale also called her sister, Cindy Webb, to testify. Webb testified that she witnessed Bennett verbally abuse Dale and exhibit controlling behavior over Dale. Webb did not witness Bennett exhibiting abusive behavior toward his children and never saw any physical abuse. Webb said that in 2005, shortly after the murder of the business partner, Bennett asked Webb to get rid of a gun by throwing it into a river.
¶ 17 Dale called Bennett to testify as an adverse witness. Bennett testified that he never threatened Dale's life. He denied confessing to Davis that he had his business partner murdered and, further, denied asking Webb to get rid of a gun.
¶ 18 Bennett called both of his parents to testify. Both parents reported that they had never seen Bennett exhibit abusive behaviors.
¶ 19 Following closing arguments, the trial court explained its findings of fact and concluded that the petition had been proven. The trial court entered a plenary order of protection that contained an expiration date of October 25, 2015.
¶ 21 In February 2015, Dale pro se filed a petition to modify the plenary order of protection so that communication would be allowed between Dale and Bennett regarding their pending divorce and matters pertaining to their children. The trial court granted that motion the following month.
¶ 22 In September 2015, Dale pro se filed a request for hearing on extending the plenary order of protection for an indefinite amount of time. Dale alleged that she remained fearful for her safety and her children's safety.
¶ 23 In October 2015, Dale filed a motion to modify the plenary order of protection, asking that the prior request to allow limited communication be dismissed and that the terms of the original plenary order of protection resume. That same day, the trial court entered an order continuing the matter because Bennett had not yet been served with a copy of the petition to extend the plenary order of protection.
¶ 24 In November 2015, the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to extend the plenary order of protection, but Bennett failed to appear. The court noted that Bennett had been served with summons. The court found that Bennett was in default and extended the plenary order of protection indefinitely. The court also vacated the order allowing limited communication. Shortly thereafter, the Manatee County, Florida, sheriff's office served Bennett with a copy of the order.
¶ 26 In October 2019, Bennett filed a motion to terminate the plenary order of protection, alleging that an indefinite extension is not allowed by statute. In January 2020, the trial court conducted a hearing on that motion and denied it, concluding that courts may extend plenary orders of protection for indefinite periods of time.
¶ 27 This appeal followed.
¶ 29 Bennett...
To continue reading
Request your trial