Kirk v. Kirk
Decision Date | 22 May 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 79-920,79-920 |
Citation | 407 N.E.2d 562,85 Ill.App.3d 805,41 Ill.Dec. 64 |
Parties | , 41 Ill.Dec. 64 Anita KIRK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles KIRK, Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Jerome Marvin Kaplan, Chicago, for petitioner-appellant.
Vincent F. Vitullo, Chicago, for respondent-appellee.
The petitioner, Anita Kirk, appeals from an order of the circuit court of Cook County which vacated those portions of a judgment of dissolution of marriage relating to property, maintenance, support, custody, visitation and attorneys' fees under section 72 of the Civil Practice Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 110, par. 72.) On appeal Anita Kirk argues (1) the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear Charles Kirk's section 72 petition or to grant relief thereunder because the court had previously denied a section 72 petition in which Charles Kirk requested the same relief on the same grounds; and (2) the trial court erred in granting the relief requested in the second section 72 petition because it did not state grounds for relief.
Anita Kirk filed for divorce on March 18, 1977. The cause was heard by Judge Fleck on October 14, 1977. Although Charles Kirk had filed a response the matter was heard by agreement as if it were a default proceeding. Charles Kirk remained outside the courtroom during the hearing, but his counsel was present and participated in the proceeding.
After grounds for dissolution were established, Anita Kirk testified that on June 30, 1977, the parties had entered into a written settlement agreement. The agreement provided in part that Charles Kirk was to pay Anita Kirk $7200 per year as unallocated child support and maintenance in semi-monthly installments of $300.
Anita Kirk testified that she was earning $70 net per week and that Charles Kirk was earning $263 net per week ($13,676 net annually). She testified that at the time the settlement agreement was executed Charles Kirk was also earning $100 gross per week ($5200 annually) from part time employment at a massage parlor. It was represented by the parties that because of Charles Kirk's ill health he was not working at the massage parlor at the time of the hearing but that the parties expected that he would resume working there within two weeks.
The trial judge directed that the judgment of dissolution specifically state that the $7200 annual unallocated child support and maintenance award was predicated upon Charles Kirk having two jobs and that it specify his earnings from each job. The trial judge directed that this provision be included because he did not believe the settlement agreement would be workable unless Charles Kirk actually resumed working at his second job. He did not want the parties to be "confronted with post decree motions and expenses" in the event that Charles Kirk did not return to his second job.
On December 14, 1977, a written order and a judgment of dissolution was submitted by the parties and entered by the court. It incorporated the written settlement of June 30, 1977, and contained a statement that the $7200 annual unallocated support and maintenance award was predicated upon Charles Kirk's gross annual income of $21,600 ($415.38 weekly). The judgment did not state that the maintenance/support award was predicated upon Charles Kirk having two jobs or set forth his income from each.
On December 29, 1977, Charles Kirk filed a petition to set aside the property settlement on the ground that it was procured by fraud and deceit. Anita Kirk moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was actually a section 72 petition and therefore improperly filed in the post-judgment motions section of the court. On June 21, 1978, Charles Kirk filed an affidavit stating that he was on that date earning $314.35 net per week and that he was employed at one job. Judge Grupp conducted a hearing on Charles Kirk's petition on June 21, 1978. On June 23, 1978, Judge Grupp found that there was no material change in circumstances since the entry of the judgment of dissolution with regard to the parties' income and denied Charles Kirk's petition.
On August 28, 1978, Nathan Gomberg was granted leave to substitute as attorney for Charles Kirk. On September 14, 1978, Charles Kirk filed a section 72 petition requesting that those portions of the judgment of dissolution relating to child support, maintenance, and attorneys' fees be vacated on the grounds that they were "improperly and erroneously" entered because the judgment did not contain the provision that the child support/maintenance award was predicated upon the respondent having two jobs and did not set forth the salary earned from each of the jobs as had been directed by the trial judge.
The matter was heard by Judge Fleck on October 26, 1978. On that date the court entered an order "on the petition of Charles Kirk, respondent, under section 72" finding that the December 14, 1977, judgment of dissolution failed to contain a finding that the separation agreement was predicated upon the respondent having two jobs at which he earned $263 net per week and $100 gross per week and that this finding had been directed by the court to be included. The court ordered that within 14 days the judgment of dissolution be corrected nunc pro tunc to December 14, 1977, to include a finding that "the settlement agreement of the parties is predicated upon Charles Kirk having a net income from his main source of employment of $263 per week and a part time employment gross income of $100 per week."
After informing the parties of his ruling, the trial judge stated that any matters pertaining to a modification of the property, support, or maintenance provisions of the judgment of dissolution would have to be brought before the post-judgment motions court. In response to a request by Charles Kirk, the trial judge expressly refused to consider what the property, support, or maintenance award should have been at the time of the judgment of dissolution and instead referred the matter to the post-judgment motions court. The court refused to vacate the December 14, 1977, judgment as Charles Kirk had requested in his section 72 petition or to grant a trial de novo on the property, support and maintenance issues. Charles Kirk did not appeal from the court's order or petition for a rehearing.
On January 18, 1979, Charles Kirk, by his trial attorney, Nathan Gomberg, filed another section 72 petition requesting that the judgment of dissolution be vacated except for those portions relating to grounds. The petition was based upon the allegations that on October 26, 1978: (1) the trial court had found the judgment of dissolution lacked provisions which the trial court had directed to be included; (2) the trial court had found that the terms of the judgment were unconscionable; (3) the trial court had ordered that Charles Kirk's section 72 petition of September 14 be suspended; (4) the trial court had directed Anita Kirk's attorney to file the corrected judgment; and, (5) Anita Kirk's attorney failed to follow the court's decision. We note that all except the first of these allegations are unsupported by the record.
On January 24, 1979, the trial court granted the January 18, 1979, petition, vacated the December 14, 1977, judgment of dissolution except those portions relating to grounds and set the cause for hearing. Anita Kirk filed a petition for a rehearing on February 20, 1979. On March 5, 1979, her petition for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sullivan v. Bach
...that ordinarily an order entered denying any relief prayed in a section 72 petition is appealable (In re Marriage of Kirk (1980), 85 Ill.App.3d 805, 809, 41 Ill.Dec. 64, 407 N.E.2d 562; Werth Industries, Inc. v. Mid-America Management Co. (1973), 16 Ill.App.3d 688, 689, 306 N.E.2d 510), and......
-
County Collector for Judgment of Sale Against Lands and Lots Returned Delinquent for Nonpayment of General Taxes for Year 1974 and Prior Years, Application of
...303; City Wide Carpet, Inc. v. John (1st Dist. 1980), 83 Ill.App.3d 538, 39 Ill.Dec. 81, 404 N.E.2d 465; Kirk v. Kirk (1st Dist. 1980), 85 Ill.App.3d 805, 41 Ill.Dec. 64, 407 N.E.2d 562; Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co. v. Rubin (1st Dist. 1980), 89 Ill.App.3d 244, 44 Ill.Dec. 520, 411 N.E.2d......
-
Village of Glenview v. Buschelman, 1-96-1667
...& Coke Co. v. Rubin, 89 Ill.App.3d 244, 246, 44 Ill.Dec. 520, 522, 411 N.E.2d 886, 888 (1980); In re Marriage of Kirk, 85 Ill.App.3d 805, 808-09, 41 Ill.Dec. 64, 67, 407 N.E.2d 562, 565 (1980) (permitting petitioner to file additional section 2-1401 petition alleging same grounds and seekin......
-
People ex rel. McGraw v. Mogilles
...Sign & Signal Corp. v. Czubak (1978), 57 Ill.App.3d 176, 181, 14 Ill.Dec. 686, 372 N.E.2d 965; In re Marriage of Kirk (1980), 85 Ill.App.3d 805, 809, 41 Ill.Dec. 64, 407 N.E.2d 562; Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Rubin (1980), 89 Ill.App.3d 244, 247, 44 Ill.Dec. 520, 411 N.E.2d 886; Werth ......