Martinez v. Department of Public Aid
Decision Date | 25 May 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 1-03-0730.,1-03-0730. |
Citation | 348 Ill.App.3d 788,810 N.E.2d 608,284 Ill.Dec. 818 |
Parties | Paula Q. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AID, an Agency of the State of Illinois, and Bank One, N.A., a National Banking Association, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Drake James Leoris, Jr. and David Drenk, of Leoris & Cohen, P.C., Highland Park, for Appellant.
Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Gary S. Feinerman, Solicitor General, and Diane M. Potts, Assistant Attorney General, Chicago, for Appellee Department of Public Aid.
James M. Wyman and Paul K. Johnson, Attorneys for Bank One, NA, Chicago, for Appellee Bank One, NA.
Plaintiff Paula Q. Martinez appeals the trial court order dismissing her complaint against defendants the Illinois Department of Public Aid (Department) and Bank One, N.A. We affirm.
This dispute arose over an arrearage in child support owed by plaintiff's nephew, Mauro Rodriguez. Rodriguez owed his ex-wife $28,316.96 in past-due child support for the couple's two children. While investigating Rodriguez's assets, the Department discovered a savings account with Bank One held by Rodriguez and plaintiff. The Department placed a lien on the account under section 10-25.5 of the Illinois Public Aid Code (Public Aid Code) (305 ILCS 5/10-25.5 (West 2002)) and section 160.70(g)(2) of the Illinois Administrative Code (Administrative Code) (89 Ill. Adm.Code § 160.70(g)(2) (2002)). Notice of the lien was sent to plaintiff, advising plaintiff of her right to prevent the levy on her share of the account by requesting a hearing within 15 days of the notice. Plaintiff received the notice but did not request a hearing, later alleging she "lacked the capacity to understand said notice."
On direction of the Department, Bank One surrendered $28,316.96 of the account to the Department on January 11, 2002. After receiving the money, the Department forwarded the funds to Rodriguez's ex-wife. On March 26, 2002, plaintiff sent the Department a letter demanding return of the funds to her account. The Department advised plaintiff it was no longer in possession of the funds.
On August 27, 2002, plaintiff filed a two-count declaratory judgment action against defendants. In count I, plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that section 160.70(g)(2) of the Administrative Code, to the extent it gave the Department "authority to adjudicate its own lien claim against plaintiff," is unconstitutional. In addition to declaratory relief, plaintiff sought "an order requiring the return of [the transferred] funds to [p]laintiff, prejudgment interest, plus costs and such other relief as the court deems just and proper." Count II was brought against Bank One and alleged Bank One wrongfully surrendered the funds in plaintiff's account to the Department. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that the account funds "were at all times the property of [p]laintiff and * * * an order requiring the return of said funds to [p]laintiff, prejudgment interest, plus costs and such other relief as the court deems just and proper." As a basis for relief on both counts, plaintiff alleged the savings account had been in her name for several years. She added Rodriguez to the account out of convenience "so he could make transactions on behalf of [p]laintiff with respect to the account." Plaintiff alleged Rodriguez was not given an interest in the account.
The Department moved to dismiss count I under section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2002)), arguing sovereign immunity deprived the court of jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim because it was a claim against the state for money damages. Bank One moved to dismiss count II of the complaint under section 2-615 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2002)), arguing it was immune from liability under section 24.50 of the Public Aid Code (305 ILCS 5/10-24.50 (West 2002)). The trial court granted defendants' motions and denied plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff appeals.
We review the trial court order dismissing plaintiff's complaint under sections 2-615 and 2-619 of the Code de novo. See Feltmeier v. Feltmeier, 207 Ill.2d 263, 266, 278 Ill.Dec. 228, 798 N.E.2d 75 (2003).
Count I of plaintiff's complaint alleged section 160.70(g)(2) of the Administrative Code violates article I, section 12 (open courts provision), and article II, section 1 ( ), of the Illinois Constitution. Ill. Const.1970, art. I, § 12, art. II, § 1. Section 160.70(g)(2) governs enforcement of child support orders through liens on the personal property of people who are legally responsible for dependant support. See 89 Ill. Adm.Code § 160.70(g)(2) (1996); see also 89 Ill. Adm.Code § 160.5 (1996) (defining "responsible relative"). Because plaintiff did not specify which provisions of section 160.70(g)(2) are unconstitutional, we set forth the full text of the rule below:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schultz v. Lakewood Elec. Corp.
...N.E.2d 906 (2005). This section "only requires there be some remedy for an alleged wrong." Martinez v. Department of Public Aid, 348 Ill.App.3d 788, 794, 284 Ill.Dec. 818, 810 N.E.2d 608 (2004). Accordingly, it has been held that section 12 does not create fundamental rights in the interest......
-
Purmal v. Robert N. Wadington & Associates
...court order's dismissing plaintiff's complaint under sections 2-615 and 2-619 de novo. Martinez v. Department of Public Aid, 348 Ill.App.3d 788, 790, 284 Ill.Dec. 818, 810 N.E.2d 608, 610 (2004). In count I, her malpractice claim against Wadington, Purmal alleged in paragraphs 11(a) and (b)......
-
Munson v. City of La Salle
...Inc., 359 Ill.App.3d 186, 197 (2005). This section "only requires there be some remedy for an alleged wrong." Martinez v. Department of Public Aid, 348 Ill.App.3d 788, 794 (2004).¶ 24 A plaintiff seeking redress from the State is only permitted to proceed in the Court of Claims for whatever......