Will County Divorce Lawyers - Andreano and Lyons - Attorneys

Judge Robert Baron has announced his retirement and there will be a new presiding judge effective June 24, 2013. Associate Judge Robert P. Brumund will be the Presiding Judge   New Divorce Court Room Assignments:   Robert P. Brumund (Courtroom 312), Dinah L. Archambeault (Courtroom 300), Brian E. Barrett (Courtroom 306), Matthew G. Bertani (Courtroom 308) and Theodore J. Jarz (Courtroom 307). Morning Call : Motions, case management conferences, status calls, prove ‐ ups, grounds hearings, status hearings and contested pre and post decree motions shall be heard Monday through Friday mornings. Afternoon Call: Trials involving remaining issues, custody, visitation, removals and post decree matters requiring extended testimony shall be heard at 1:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday. Pre-trials shall be heard at 1:30 p.m. on Friday and at such other times as are scheduled by the Court.   Link to new Order: June 2013 Administrative Order...

      The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled in a recent case that child support is due from a lump sum worker’s compensation award in the amount equal to the percentage due for the number of minor children supported (20% for one, 28% for two, etc.). Thus a lump sum worker's comp award = lump sum child support award.       In this case, four years after a divorce the former husband was injured at work and received a $240,000 settlement of his worker’s compensation claim. Somehow he spent all of that without first telling his ex-wife of the claim or the settlement. She caught up with him a year later and filed a petition to modify support payments to try and get a piece of the settlement for child support.       The divorce laws of Illinois provide guidelines to help courts determine the minimum amount of child support. These guidelines do not always have to be followed and the court can “deviate” from them as...

Father’s  Parent’s Rights Championed by the Court OK, first off I am NOT a “father rights” attorney. I am a client’s rights attorney. And in my humble opinion any lawyer who sells themselves to you only as a “father’s right’s attorney” is a scam artist. These lawyers prey on unwary fathers who are in need of help and counsel, not snake oil. Anyway, that’s for another discussion. In a recent appellate case* a trial court took a very bold stance when it awarded a father sole custody of a child who had previously been living with the mother after the parties divorced. It was a bold move because the judge gave sole custody to the father even though he did not even request it and he even suggested that the mother get sole custody. The reason the court took this drastic move was because the mother had gone so far in interfering with the father’s parenting time and in alienating the daughter from the father that the court on its own removed joint parenting and granted sole custod...

The case of   Schultz v. Performance Lighting, Inc. (2nd Dist 2013) highlights the absolute importance of fully completing a withholding order for support AND a client's interest in giving their attorney all of the information necessary to successfully handle their case. I often tell client's "information is ammunition to your attorney" if you give me none, I have nothing to fight with for you. This includes even mundane information like the obligor's social security number. It is the law in Illinois that if the employer of someone order to pay support does not honor the withholding order, there can be serious liabilities. In this case, the mother was owed child support through a withholding order and tried to enforce the law that says the employer can be liable for up to $100 a day for refusing to honor a withholding order. This is a serious situation and employers have been fined for tens of thousands of dollars for this. In the case referenced abo...

The case of In re Marriage of Mathis provides a cautionary tale to anyone who would advise their attorney to “fight at all costs” or “never give in”. No doubt there are situations where a battle is necessary and a judge is needed for a final decision at a trial. But many times the length of time it takes to get to that point defeats the purpose and many divorce litigants and quite frankly their attorneys fail to factor this into the equation. Take the case of Ken and Terri Mathis recently decided by the Illinois Supreme Court. In that case the people have substantial assets but have been fighting over those assets since November 2000. Note that I do not use the past tense when describing their case because IT IS STILL GOING ON! The legal points are mostly for the lawyers reading this. But basically, divorcing spouses have the option of splitting the case into two parts, first the grounds (or reasons) for divorce and then the property division and other issues – it is called bifurc...

Supreme Court Reverses a 26 year Rule on the Right of a Guardian to File for Divorce on Behalf of a Ward   In October of last year the Illinois Supreme Court reversed a 26 year old rule that guardians of an adult under a disability could not file for divorce by reversing In re Marriage of Drews , 503 N.E.2d 339 (1986) In that case the Court said that a guardian had no ability to file a divorce on behalf of a ward. That case was hotly contested even at the time when one of the dissenting justices complained that if starting a divorce “can be shown to be beneficial to the maintenance and welfare of the ward, the court ought to allow it.” It took a long time for that dissent to be a basis to change the law. But it did when the Supreme Court revisited the right of a guardian to initiate a divorce case on behalf of a ward. Karbin v. Karbin , 2012 IL 12815 (Ill. 2012). The Justices summed it up when they stated: “This ensures that the most vulnerable members of our society are af...

The Illinois Supreme Court moved swiftly over the Christmas Holiday to revise the rules of service of court documents/pleadings. It had previously wanted to force all lawyers and parties to get set up for service and receipt of court papers by e-mail. (see post below)  But last week the Court clearly has revisited whether that was such a good idea and has now revised the revised Rule 11. Thus in this sudden about-face before the new rule was even effective, email service of documents is now just allowed, it is not mandatory . If a lawyer or party wants to get service by email, then he or she should list an email address on pleadings filed with the court. Summarized as follows: If an email address is listed on pleadings and/or email is used by the sending party themselves, then that attorney or party consents to the use of email and service by email is valid. If an email address is not listed on the filed pleadings OR the party or attorney r...