Matt, In re
| Decision Date | 23 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 60278,60278 |
| Citation | 473 N.E.2d 1310,85 Ill.Dec. 505,105 Ill.2d 330 |
| Parties | , 85 Ill.Dec. 505 In re Support of Max Steven MATT et al. (Karen MATT, Appellant, v. Alvin E. MATT et al., Appellees). |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Martin L. Silverman, Adolph L. Haas, and Gary E. Dienstag, Springer, Casey, Haas, Dienstag & Silverman, Chicago, for appellant.
Neil F. Hartigan, Atty. Gen. and Richard M. Daley, States Atty. of Cook County, Chicago, for amicus curiae; Vincenzo Chimera, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Donald Havis, Asst. States Atty., Cook County, Chicago, of counsel.
Sherman & Lewis and Leonard E. Blum, Chicago, for garnishee-defendant co-respondent.
Karen Matt, the petitioner, brought a garnishment action in the circuit court of Cook County against Cosmopolitan National Bank of Chicago, seeking to enforce a judgment of $7,000 for child-support arrearages against her former husband, respondent Alvin E. Matt. His whereabouts are unknown, and the petitioner has applied for public aid. The respondent is the lifetime beneficiary of a testamentary trust established by his mother, Yetta Matt, from which he is entitled to receive $3,600 per year. The garnishee bank filed a "no funds" answer to the petitioner's action predicated upon the following spendthrift provision in the trust instrument:
"Neither principal nor income of the Trust herein established shall be pledged, transferred, sold, anticipated or encumbered by any beneficiary herein named, nor be in any manner liable, while in the possession of the Trustee, for any contract, debt or obligation, nor for any claim voluntarily or involuntarily created either legal or equitable against any beneficiary, including claims for alimony or support of any spouse of such beneficiary."
The circuit court concluded that because the spendthrift provision expressly protects the trust against claims for spousal support but makes no reference to child support, the testator did not intend to protect the trust from the respondent's child-support obligations. That court therefore ordered that the trust income be subject to a claim for child-support arrearages. The appellate court reversed, holding that section 2-1403 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 110, par. 2-1403) prohibits the garnishment of the trust income. (123 Ill.App.3d 47, 78 Ill.Dec. 416, 462 N.E.2d 535.) The court raised the applicability of section 2-1403 sua sponte; it was neither briefed nor argued by any party.
The issue presented for review by this court is whether the income from the testamentary trust is subject to a claim for the respondent's child-support arrearages. Our determination of the issue involves a construction of section 2-1403 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 110, par. 2-1403) and section 4.1 of the Non-Support of Spouse and Children Act (Non-Support Act) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 40, par. 1107.1), the relationship between these sections, the public policy established by the General Assembly when it enacted the latter section, and our decision in a recent case involving a closely analogous issue. Because we dispose of the case on these grounds, we need not determine, as the circuit court did, whether the spendthrift clause itself excludes claims for child-support arrearages.
The appellate court held, and the respondent argues here, that section 2-1403 of the Code of Civil Procedure prohibits the garnishment of the trust income in the present case. The statute provides:
"No court shall order the satisfaction of a judgment out of any property held in trust for the judgment debtor if such trust has, in good faith, been created by, or the fund so held in trust has proceeded from, a person other than the judgment debtor." (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 110, par. 2-1403.)
The respondent contends that because this trust was created in good faith by Yetta Matt, a person other than the judgment debtor, the circuit court's order that the trust income be subject to a claim for the respondent's child-support arrearages was improper.
However, section 4.1 of the Non-Support Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 40, par. 1107.1) now provides for the withholding of "income," "regardless of source," for the purpose of securing collection of unpaid support obligations. The statute defines "income" as "any form of periodic payment to an individual, regardless of source, including, but not limited to: wages, salary, commission, compensation as an independent contractor, workers' compensation, disability, annuity and retirement benefits, and any other payments, made by any person, private entity, federal or state government, any unit of local government, school district or any entity created by Public Act * * *." (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 40, par. 1107.1(A)(4).) The income from the trust established by Yetta Matt and administered by the Cosmopolitan National Bank clearly falls within the category of a "periodic payment to an individual" "made by [a] person [or] private entity."
Significantly, the same section of the statute provides:
"Any other State or local laws which limit or exempt income or the amount or percentage of income that can be withheld shall not apply." (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 40, par. 1107.1(A)(4)(e).)
We read this provision to indicate the General Assembly's intention that section 4.1 prevail over all laws to the contrary, including section 2-1403 of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Sheppard v. Money
... ... 40, par. 706.1), the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 40, par. 1226.1 et seq.), and the Illinois Public Aid Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 23, par. 10-16.2 et seq.), complied with the Federal mandate. See In re Matt (1985), 105 Ill.2d 330, 85 Ill.Dec. 505, 473 N.E.2d 1310 ... The Act fulfills an important social need in terms of declaring an obligation of support and improving Illinois' method of enforcement of support obligations. In the instant case, there is no question, at least ... ...
-
In re Marriage of Sharp
... ... In re Support of Matt, 105 Ill.2d 330, 334, 85 Ill.Dec. 505, 473 N.E.2d 1310 (1985); Chapman, 297 Ill.App.3d at 616-17, 231 Ill.Dec. 811, 697 N.E.2d 365; In re Marriage of Stevens, 292 Ill.App.3d 994, 1000-01, 227 Ill.Dec. 242, 687 N.E.2d 165 (1997). It is the public policy in this state to ensure that child ... ...
-
Marriage of Semmler, In re
... ... 633, 469 N.E.2d 167, the court held that a statutory provision governing the collection of maintenance arrearages was to be applied to arrearages that accumulated before the effective date of the statute (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 40, par. 706.1). In In re Support of Matt (1985), 105 Ill.2d 330, 335, 85 Ill.Dec. 505, 473 N.E.2d 1310, the court relied on Logston to hold similarly that the identical provision of the Non-Support of Spouse and Children Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 40, pars. 1107.1(A)(1)(a), (A)(2)) also applied to arrearages which accumulated before the ... ...
-
Jakubik v. Jakubik
... ... Matt (1985), 105 Ill.2d 330, 85 Ill.Dec. 505, 473 N.E.2d 1310, the exempt property was taken to satisfy unpaid support obligations. (See, Logston, 103 Ill.2d at 283-84, 82 Ill.Dec. 633, 469 N.E.2d 167 (exempt status of income no defense to contempt proceeding for failure to pay support obligation); In ... ...
-
Spendthrift Trust Clauses and Kansas Divorces: Does a Settlor's Intent Still Matter?
...v. Owens, 28 Ark. App. 49, 55, 770 S.W2d 193, 197 (1989); Seidenberg v. Seidenberg, 225 E2d 545, 550 (D.C. Cir. 1955); In re Matt, 105 Ill.2d 330, 335, 473 N.E.2d 1310, 1313 (1985); Ford v. Ford, 230 Ky. 56, 56-57, 18 S.W2d 859, 860-861 (1929); Eaton v. Eaton, 82 N. H. 216, 132 A. 10,11 (19......
-
Spendthrift Trust Clauses and Kansas Divorces: Does a Settlor’s Intent Still Matter?
...v. Owens, 28 Ark. App. 49, 55, 770 S.W.2d 193, 197 (1989); Seidenberg v. Seidenberg, 225 F.2d 545, 550 (D.C. Cir. 1955); In re Matt, 105 Ill.2d 330, 335, 473 N.E.2d 1310, 1313 (1985); Ford v. Ford, 230 Ky. 56, 56-57, 18 S.W.2d 859, 860-861 (1929); Eaton v. Eaton, 82 N. H. 216, 132 A. 10,11 ......