Hawkins v. Potter
| Decision Date | 29 November 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 63-M-1,63-M-1 |
| Citation | 44 Ill.App.2d 314,194 N.E.2d 672 |
| Parties | Myron S. HAWKINS v. Cecil POTTER. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
C. M. Raemer, Robert D. Albright, Salem, for appellant.
John E. Jacobsen, Craig & Craig, Mt. Vernon, for appellee.
This is a suit for damages for personal injuries and property damage caused by a vehicular collision. Included in the claim for damages was loss of earnings. The suit was dismissed by the trial court because of the failure of the plaintiff to comply with discovery orders as hereinafter mentioned.
Among the interrogatories defendant served upon plaintiff was an inquiry whether plaintiff had copies of his income tax returns for certain years and asked, 'State your net income as shown by your tax returns,' etc. In answer, the plaintiff admitted he had copies of his tax returns, but declined to disclose the amount of his income for the specified years.
The defendant filed a motion to require the plaintiff to answer the interrogatory and, after hearing, the court ordered the plaintiff to answer within twenty days. An extension of time was granted and finally the plaintiff still having refused to comply, the court entered a final judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
Within thirty days after entry of judgment, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint with an affidavit in support thereof, and a proposed amended complaint. The affidavit reveals that plaintiff was fully informed by his counsel of his legal obligation to answer the interrogatory and the severe consequences that could result if he persisted in his refusal. The tendered amended complaint proposed to eliminate the claim for loss of earnings. No petition or motion to vacate or set aside the judgment of dismissal was ever filed.
The first question to be decided is whether the refusal to disclose the information on the income tax returns was justified on the ground that it was privileged. Some of the early federal cases held that it was privileged, but there are now a long line of federal decisions to the effect that they are not privileged. This court holds that, when the income of a litigant is an issue in the case, the opposite party has the right to ascertain, by discovery process, the relevant facts as they were disclosed to the government for tax purposes. This right cannot be defeated on the ground that the information is privileged. Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, Vol. 2A, Sec. 651.2. Also see Note: Prior Earnings Not Privileged from Pre-Trial Discovery, 1958, U. of Ill. Law Forum, 651.
Supreme Court Rule 19-12(3), Ill.Rev.Stat. Ch. 110, Sec. 101.19-12 specifically authorizes the trial court to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with any order entered under the discovery rules. The plaintiff was given ample opportunity to comply with the court's order and received warning from his counsel, but still refused to comply. We, therefore, hold the court's ruling was within the court's discretion as an appropriate order. As stated in Sager Glove Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., 19 Ill.App.2d 568, 154 N.E.2d 833: 'The trial court had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawkins v. Wiggins
...by discovery process, the relevant facts as they were disclosed to the government for tax purposes." (Hawkins v. Potter (4th Dist. 1963), 44 Ill.App.2d 314, 316, 194 N.E.2d 672. Also see Freehill v. DeWitt County Service Co. (4th Dist. 1970), 125 Ill.App.2d 306, 321, 261 N.E.2d 52.) Plainti......
-
Konle v. Page
...tax returns is permitted only insofar as those returns are relevant and material to the issues of the case. See Hawkins v. Potter, 44 Ill.App.2d 314, 194 N.E.2d 672, 673 (1963); Schlatter v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 93 Nev. 189, 561 P.2d 1342, 1343-44 (1977); Currier v. Allied N.H. Gas ......
-
Gillespie v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co.
...the cases cited by defendant in which the penalty imposed was dismissal of the complaint, or striking the answer. In Hawkins v. Potter, 44 Ill.App.2d 314, 194 N.E.2d 672, the court dismissed the complaint when plaintiff refused to obey a court order to answer interrogatories. In Chavez v. E......
-
Freehill v. DeWitt County Service Co.
...a litigant has put in issue him income, the privilege from discovery of his income tax returns is waived. Hawkins v. Potter, 44 Ill.App.2d 314, 194 N.E.2d 672 (4th Dist.1963); Wigington v. Faulkner, 51 Ill.App.2d 220, 201 N.E.2d 252 (4th Dist.1964) (abst.). Since these returns were subject ......