Marriage of Lentz, In re
Decision Date | 18 April 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 52348,52348 |
Citation | 79 Ill.2d 400,403 N.E.2d 1036,38 Ill.Dec. 582 |
Parties | , 38 Ill.Dec. 582 In re MARRIAGE OF Linda S. LENTZ, Appellee, and Larry Dean Lentz, Appellant. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Robert Weiner and Terry L. Fields, Springfield, for appellant.
Robert I. Auler, Urbana (Daniel King, law student, of counsel), for appellee.
This appeal involves the construction of certain provisions of the recently enacted Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act ( ). It concerns the appealability of a judgment entered pursuant to sections 401 and 402 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 40, pars. 401, 402). The resolution of this issue requires the examination and construction of certain language contained in section 413(a) of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 40, par. 413(a)).
Linda S. Lentz filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the Champaign County circuit court. Larry Dean Lentz, her husband, filed a counterpetition for legal separation and an answer to the petition for dissolution. The hearing on the grounds for dissolution was conducted in accordance with section 403(e) of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 40, par. 403(e)), which provides for a determination of the dissolution or separation issue separately from other issues. The trial court entered a judgment order wherein respondent's counterpetition for legal separation was denied and the petition for the dissolution of marriage was granted. The judgment order reserved the questions of maintenance and property division for future court action. The order did not contain language to the effect that there was no just reason for delaying enforcement or appeal. (See 73 Ill.2d R. 304(a).) Subsequent to the trial court's denial of respondent's motion for reconsideration, the respondent appealed from the judgment.
On appeal, the appellate court, sua sponte, questioned its jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. (73 Ill.App.3d 93, 29 Ill.Dec. 319, 391 N.E.2d 582.) The court noted that multiple claims for relief were presented and that an appeal from a final judgment entered on less than all of the claims was permissible only under our Rule 304(a) (73 Ill.2d R. 304(a)). The court found the judgment of dissolution to be final as to the marital status and nonfinal as to the claims left pending. Since the final judgment, which was entered on less than all of the claims, did not include language to the effect that there was no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal, as required by our Rule 304(a), the appellate court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
In the case of Strukoff v. Strukoff (1979), 76 Ill.2d 53, 27 Ill.Dec. 762, 389 N.E.2d 1170, this court upheld the validity of section 403(e) of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 40, par. 403(e)), which provides that a bifurcated procedure is to be followed in the event of a contested trial. We must now determine whether an appeal may be taken from a judgment of dissolution, entered subsequent to the hearing on the grounds for dissolution, which reserves further matters for judicial consideration. We must necessarily construe the meaning and effect of section 413(a) of the Act, which provides in part:
"A judgment of dissolution of marriage or of legal separation or of declaration of invalidity of marriage is final when entered, subject to the right of appeal." Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 40, par. 413(a).
The language of section 413(a), on its face, appears to make the judgments enumerated therein appealable. However, article VI, section 16, of our constitution provides, in part:
"The Supreme Court shall provide by rule for expeditious and inexpensive appeals."
This court has held that this language (which was then contained in article VI, section 7, of the Constitution of 1870) places the responsibility for rules governing appeals in the supreme court and not in the General Assembly. (People ex rel. Stamos v. Jones (1968), 40 Ill.2d 62, 66, 237 N.E.2d 495; see also People v. Taylor (1971), 50 Ill.2d 136, 140, 277 N.E.2d 878.) For historical analysis of the rule-making power of the court, see People v. Jackson (1977), 69 Ill.2d 252, 13 Ill.Dec. 667, 371 N.E.2d 602.
Our Rule 1 provides in part:
"The rules on appeals supersede statutory provisions inconsistent with the rules and govern all appeals." (73 Ill.2d R. 1.)
Rule 301 provides in part:
"Every final judgment of a circuit court in a civil case is appealable as of right." (73 Ill.2d R. 301.)
Rule 303 (73 Ill.2d R. 303) provides for the procedure for appealing from final judgments, and Rule 304(a) provides:
"If multiple parties or multiple claims for relief are involved in an action, an appeal may be taken from a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the parties or claims only if the trial court has made an express written finding that there is no just reason for delaying enforcement or appeal." (73 Ill.2d R. 304(a).)
Any legislative enactment in conflict with the rules of this court governing appeals would therefore be invalid. See Strukoff v. Strukoff (1979), 76 Ill.2d 53, 27 Ill.Dec. 762 389 N.E.2d 1170; People v. Jackson (1977), 69 Ill.2d 252, 13 Ill.Dec. 667, 371 N.E.2d 602; People v. Kennedy (1969), 43 Ill.2d 200, 251 N.E.2d 209; Fins, Impropriety of Illinois Legislature's Infringement Upon the Constitutional Rule-Making Authority of the Supreme Court, 66 Ill.B.J. 384 (1978); Comment, People ex rel. Stamos v. Jones: A Restraint on Legislative Revision of the Illinois Supreme Court Rules, 6 J.Mar.J.Prac. & Proc. 382 (1973).
If section 413(a) of the Act were to be construed as an attempt by the legislature to make a judgment of dissolution of marriage final and appealable when entered, its validity would be in question. Not only would such legislation constitute an attempt to legislate in regard to the taking of appeals, an area in which the Constitution has conferred authority on this court, but also such legislation could be in direct conflict with the provisions of our Rule 304(a) governing appeals from final judgments as to fewer than all of the parties or claims. In Stubblefield v. City of Chicago (1971), 48 Ill.2d 267, 269 N.E.2d 504, this court stated that it is our duty to interpret a statute in such a manner as to promote its essential purpose and to avoid, if possible, a construction which would raise doubt as to its validity. 48 Ill.2d 267, 271, 269 N.E.2d 504.
An examination of the 1970 Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act reveals that our section 413(a) is substantially identical to section 314(a) of the uniform act, which provides in part:
"A decree of dissolution of marriage or of legal separation is final when entered, subject to the right of appeal." (1970 Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act sec. 314(a).)
The commissioner's note to section 314(a) of the uniform act sheds light on the meaning and the effect of this language:
Thus, it was not the purpose of the language of section 314(a) of the uniform act to make the judgments concerning marital status final and immediately appealable. Rather, the purpose of such language is to ensure that the parties not be subject to an interlocutory period between the determination of the grounds for divorce and the effective date of the decree. Inasmuch as section 413(a) of our act substantially adopts section 314(a) of the uniform act, the commissioner's note supports an interpretation that the Illinois legislature, by enacting section 413(a), was not attempting to define the appealability of the order. Consistent with this interpretation, the language, "subject to the right of appeal," should be construed to mean that an appeal may be taken from such a judgment if the order is indeed appealable as a matter of right or by virtue of a supreme court rule. Such a construction would be consistent with the constitutional provisions placing in this court the authority to adopt rules governing appeals.
We need not decide whether a judgment of dissolution is a final judgment or is in fact an interlocutory judgment. That question has not been briefed and argued in this court. If such a judgment is not a final judgment, any attempt by the legislature to make it appealable would be a clear violation of article VI, section 6, of our constitution, which provides that the supreme court may provide by rule for appeals to the appellate court from other than final judgments of the circuit court. This court has provided for interlocutory appeals in our Rules 307 and 308. (73 Ill.2d Rules 307, 308.) If the judgment is a final judgment, there is a constitutional right to an appeal to the appellate court under article VI, section 6, which provides in part:
"Appeals from final judgments of a Circuit Court are a matter of right to the Appellate Court * * *."
This constitutional provision, however, does not confer a right to an immediate appeal from final judgments. Such an appeal must be governed by the procedural rules of this court pertaining to appeals. Former section 50(2) of the Civil Practice Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, ch. 110, par. 50(2)) contained the provisions now found in our Rule 304(a) concerning appeals from final judgments that do not dispose of the entire proceeding. In Ariola v. Nigro (1958), 13 Ill.2d 200, 207, 148 N.E.2d 787, 791, this court stated:
"(T)he section is not one which either curtails or grants appellate jurisdiction, but is one which fixes the procedure in the trial court as to the conditions affecting the terms upon which an appeal may be taken in advance of a determination of the entire case."
The provisions of our rule were aimed at discouraging piecemeal appeals in the absence of some compelling reason and at removing the uncertainty as to the appealability of a judgment which was entered on less...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Matter of Chapman, Bankruptcy No. 90 B 14910.
... ... In re Marriage of Lentz, 79 Ill.2d 400, 38 Ill.Dec. 582, 585, 403 N.E.2d 1036, 1039 (1980). Rather, finality turns on whether a judgment absolutely fixes the ... ...
-
Finley v. Finley
... ... The resolution of this issue also involves the construction of section 510(c) of the recently enacted Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 40, par. 510(c)) ... On October 4, 1965, a decree was entered in the ... During the last term of court, we had occasion to construe certain provisions of the new act. (In re Marriage of Lentz (1980), 79 Ill.2d 400, 34 Ill.Dec. 743, 398 N.E.2d 418.) In an attempt to ascertain legislative intent, we looked to applicable provisions of the ... ...
- People v. Bradley
-
People v. Partee
... ... (In re Marriage of Lentz (1980), 79 Ill.2d 400, 407, 38 Ill.Dec. 582, 403 N.E.2d 1036.) Similar problems would arise from a statute ... Page 464 ... [125 ... ...