High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
INTHE CIRC'UIT COURTOFCOOKCOUNTY,LLINOISCOUNTYDEPARTMENT,DOMESTICREI,ATIONSDIVISION
IN RE THE MARRIAGEOF
Respondent
))
1:,.,,,.CaseNo. 09 D-l
:(;
i car.61
))
r2O3MOTIONTO RECONSIDER NDVACATEVOID ORDERS
)))
Petitioner
precedent:3. A conplaint fordivorce was filed by Petitioner onJulyOrderofProtectionIseue
ri
NoW CoMESPetitiooer,e,who espectfullyoveshis
HonorableCourtoreconsidernd/orvacateorderofMay5, 2011pursuanto 735ILCS5/r203.1.Jurisdiction spursuanto 735 LCS.5/2-1203.his motion stimely filed.
I,1.
Orderofdissolutionof marriagewas enteredon May5,2011.2..Petitioner s bringing hismotion o reconsider rders ordissolutionfmarriage egardingcustody,nsurance,maintenance,roperty,and financialssuesdue o fraud uponhe court by Respondent,tatutoryviolations,andother ssueswhich cause heordersofthis court o be void underhe followinghighercourti
l
::
4. A court maygrantemergency rderofprotectionwhen heparty prcvides"proofofexigentcircumstanceshatwanant issuancefan emergency rderwithoutpriornoticeo otherparty."Whittenv.Whitten,292 ll.App.l3d 780,686N.E.2d19,226Ill.Dea.6701997)5. Criteria forgrantinganplenaryor final OOP nvolves he standardof"preponderancefthe evidence", .H.A 750 LCS 60/205.The court mustdecide fthere was abuseofthe alleged ictim bypreponderancefthe evidence. roofby"thepreponderanceftheevidencemeans hat the fact at issue s renderedmorelikelythan not". Peoplev. Houa4365 ll.App.Sd682,850N.E.2d.327,302lll.Dec.
890(2006)6."Anaccusation fmisconduct s insufficient o satisfuheprobativeevidencerequirement.The complainantmustproduceevidencensupportofthe allegation"LaSalleBank v. Seguban, 4F.3d.387, 90(?thCir. 1995) n other words,withoutactually evidence eyond he hearsaynthe affidavj.t f Respondent,heprobativeevidence equirement s not met.7. Apreliminaryorderofprotectionwas requested y Respondent ho allegedcontinualharassment hroughoutmarriage.Preliminaryorder
ofprotectiongrantedonDecember ,2009.8. Noprcbativeevidenceo supporthearsay naffrdavitwasgllgl prcsentedothetrial court, evenat trial on Apil29, 20LL.In fact DCFS nvestigatedhisallegationn the affrdavitand declaredt "unfounded"GxhibitA) This is newevidenceeceived fter trialon June 5, 2011.2
9. Therefore,he ordergrantingan OOP rom April29, 2O!l is void ab nitiodue o violation of statutoryrequircments y this court.(HouarGat 690)l0.Petitioner respondedo complaint or orderofprotection o his attorneys,who
negligently ailed o file this written response ith the court. Petitioner old hisattorneyhe deniedall allegations f abuse.11.A hearingconcerninghe divorcewas held on December 5, 2009
andnoevidencewaspresentedeyond he affidavit filed by the RespondentoranemergencyOOP.Therewas
noopportunitygrantedor a dueprocessearingregarding he interimorderofprotection.Thiswas a violationofPetitioner's ightsto dueprocessnderhe 5thand 14thAmendments.12.Nowritten request or extension f OOPwas rledbyRespond.entyDecember.5, 009.No oral requestorextension fOOP was madeby Respondentby December5,2009.lS.Petitionerwas oldbyhis attorney hat and hechildrepresentative, avidWessel hat the OOPwould expireand no actionwas needed.
14.The nterim OOP ssuedon December 5,2009was ordered o expirc on April
19,2010or when here was a "valid entry ofjudgment of dissolution fmarriage."Ofcourse his was an invalid orderpast30 daysor January14,2010as on that datethe interim OOPexpiredonts own ermsper750 LCS 60/218ExhibitB). Thecourtsstatutorily baredrom orderingan interim OOP hat is valid forgreaterthan 30 days.
Add a Comment