28 / 52
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