Schmitt v. Woods
| Decision Date | 31 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-459,78-459 |
| Citation | 73 Ill.App.3d 498,29 Ill.Dec. 498,392 N.E.2d 55 |
| Parties | , 29 Ill.Dec. 498 Edward R. SCHMITT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sandra S. WOODS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Robert M. Keenan, Jr., Townsend, Townsend, Keenan & Timberlake, Mount Carmel, for defendant-appellant.
Plaintiff, Edward R. Schmitt, brought suit against his former wife, Sandra S. Woods, in the Circuit Court of Wabash County seeking to recover on a promissory note. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment which was denied. Pursuant to Rule 308 (Ill.Rev.Stat. Ch. 110A, par. 308) we granted defendant leave to appeal.
The parties were divorced in October of 1976 in Wabash County. Subsequent to the entry of the decree of divorce, Woods filed a petition against Schmitt for arrearage in child support. At a hearing on the petition, Schmitt introduced into evidence Woods promissory note payable by indorsement to Schmitt as a setoff against any possible past due installments. In a written order, the trial court stated that Schmitt had failed to meet his "burden of proof" that Woods was indebted to him upon the promissory note. It then awarded Woods the full amount of the delinquent child support payments without granting a setoff. We note that the parties have not supplied us with the records of any of the prior proceedings. We are therefore unable to discern the reasoning of the court's refusal to credit the note against the arrearage in child support. Schmitt then brought this present action to recover on the promissory note. In denying defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court stated that this action was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the order denying defendant the right to credit the note against the arrearage in child support is a bar to a subsequent action for recovery on the note. We believe it is not and therefore affirm the order of the trial court. The doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is an absolute bar to any subsequent action between the same parties and their privies involving the same claim, demand or cause of action. (Keim v. Kalbfleisch, 57 Ill.App.3d 621, 15 Ill.Dec. 219, 373 N.E.2d 565 (5th Dist. 1978).) There is no dispute that the original judgment was valid and final and involved the same parties as in the subsequent suit; however, the doctrine of res judicata will not apply unless it is also determined that the causes of action in both suits were the same. The test generally employed to establish the identity of actions is whether the evidence needed to sustain the second proceedings would have sustained the original action. (Pierog v. H. F. Karl Contractors, Inc., 39 Ill.App.3d 1057, 351 N.E.2d 249 (1st Dist. 1976).)
Applying these principles, it is clear that separate and distinct claims are involved. In the prior action, the proof of an enforceable promissory note could have no bearing or effect on the outcome of an action to enforce delinquent support payments. As it is the parent's basic responsibility to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
...the federal claim was precluded by the state court judgment but the state claim was not.9 See also Schmitt v. Woods, 73 Ill.App.3d 498, 499, 29 Ill.Dec. 498, 499, 392 N.E.2d 55, 56 (1979); Hilti, Inc. v. Griffith, 68 Ill.App.3d 528, 532, 24 Ill.Dec. 859, 861, 386 N.E.2d 63, 65 (1978); Kahle......
-
River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park
... ... In support of their argument plaintiffs cite, inter alia, Schmitt v. Woods, 73 Ill.App.3d 498, 29 Ill.Dec. 498, 392 N.E.2d 55 (1979), and Kahler v. Don E. Williams Co., 59 Ill.App.3d 716, 16 Ill.Dec. 927, 375 N.E.2d ... ...
-
Hagee v. City of Evanston
...whether the evidence needed to sustain the second action would have sustained the first. See, e.g., Schmitt v. Woods, 73 Ill.App.3d 498, 500, 29 Ill.Dec. 498, 499, 392 N.E.2d 55, 56 (1979); Pierog v. H.F. Karl Contractors, Inc., 39 Ill.App.3d 1057, 1061, 351 N.E.2d 249, 252 (1976). One cour......
-
LaSalle Nat. Bank of Chicago v. County of DuPage
...whether the evidence needed to sustain the second action would have sustained the first. See, e.g., Schmitt v. Woods, 73 Ill.App.3d 498, 500, 29 Ill.Dec. 498, 499, 392 N.E.2d 55, 56 (1979); Pierog v. H.F. Karl Contractors, Inc., 39 Ill.App.3d 1057, 1061, 351 N.E.2d 249, 252 (1976). One cour......