CBA Record

street address where the hearing will occur. In re County Treasurer , 359 Ill.App.3d 763, 769 (1st Dist. 2005); In re Application of County Collector , 356 Ill.App.3d 668, 672-73 (1st Dist. 2005). In Chicago, stat- ing the courthouse’s vanity address (“Rich- ard J. Daley Center”) to a non-attorney is insufficient. County Treasurer, 359 Ill. App.3d at 769; County Collector, 356 Ill. App.3d at 672-73. One familiar example of an indirect civil contempt is the jailing of an ex-husband who fails to pay court-ordered support to his ex-wife although he is able to pay, and keeping him jailed until he pays what he owes. The payment, if made, goes to the ex-wife and not to any governmental entity. Betts , 200 Ill.App.3d at 44-46, 48, 52-57. The elements of an indirect civil con- tempt are: order by a court of competent jurisdiction, directing the alleged con- temnor to act, the alleged contemnor’s capability of acting as ordered by the court, and his not so acting. The burden of proof on the party initiating the civil contempt proceeding is not to prove each of those elements. Rather, noncompliance with a court’s order is deemed prima facie evidence of an indirect civil contempt, and when the movant makes that prima facie showing of respondent’s non-compliance– e.g., nonpayment of previously ordered support money–the burden of proof then shifts to the alleged contemnor to prove

(“to show cause”) that his failure to comply was not willful or contumacious and that there exists a valid excuse for his failure to pay. In re Marriage of Logston , 103 Ill.2d 266, 285-86 (1984); S haffner v. Shaffner, 212 Ill. 492, 496 (1904). The valid excuse for non-payment is usually an inability to pay. In re Marriage of Barile , 385 Ill.App.3d 752, 758-59 (2d Dist. 2008); In re Marriage of Sharp , 369 Ill.App.3d 271, 279 (2d Dist. 2006); In re Marriage of Kolessar and Signore , 2012 IL App (1st) 102448, ¶ 23; Bank of America, N.A. v. Freed , 2012 IL App (1st) 113178, ¶ 20. To prove this defense, the alleged contemnor must show that he neither has money now with which he can pay, nor has disposed wrongfully of money or assets with which he might have paid. In re Marriage of Peterson , 319 Ill.App.3d 325, 332 (1st Dist. 2001); Logston , 103 Ill.2d at 285. The burden of proof that is shifted to the alleged contemnor is to show with reasonable certainty the amount of money he has received… and that that money has been dis- bursed in paying obligations and expenses which, under the law, he should pay before he makes any pay- ment on the decree for alimony. It is proper that he first pay his bare living expenses, but whenever he has any money in his possession that belongs

to him and which is not absolutely needed by him for the purpose of obtaining the mere necessaries of life, it is his duty to make a payment on this decree.” Logston, 103 Ill.2d at 286. Where the alleged contemnor contends that his failure to pay was due to inability, the claimed financial inability to comply with the order must be proven by definite and explicit evidence. The alleged contem- nor does not meet that burden by general testimony with respect to financial status. Sharp, 369 Ill.App.3d at 282; In re Mar- riage of Deike, 381 Ill.App.3d 620, 633 (4th Dist. 2008); In re Marriage of Ramos, 126 Ill.App.3d 391, 398 (1st Dist. 1984). A civil contempt order, unlike a crimi- nal contempt order, must always contain a purge clause, i.e., a statement of what the contemnor must do to get out of jail: the get-out-of-jail (but not for free) card. Without a purge provision, the contempt order is void. In re Marriage of Knoll, 2016 IL App (1st) 152494, par. 58. In theory the sentence in civil contempt will be indeter- minate (until the contemnor complies), but not necessarily. The sentence may be determinate. But, whether determinate or indeterminate, the contempt order must contain a purge provision. City of Mattoon v. Mentzer , 282 Ill.App.3d 628, 636 (4th Dist. 1996); Logston , 103 Ill.2d at 289. In City of Mattoon, the defendant was

28 APRIL/MAY 2017