Summary
The Illinois Supreme Court held that a circuit court could not independently overrule the Illinois Supreme Court’s precedent upholding section 513 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act against an equal protection challenge. The court vacated the circuit court’s ruling declaring the statute unconstitutional as applied, dismissed the appeal, and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the circuit court could decline to follow the Illinois Supreme Court's prior decision upholding section 513 against an equal protection challenge.
- Whether the Illinois Supreme Court should review the merits of the circuit court's constitutional ruling after vacating that ruling because the circuit court lacked authority to overrule controlling precedent.
Holdings
- Illinois circuit and appellate courts are bound to apply Illinois Supreme Court precedent and lack authority to overrule or declare that precedent a dead letter.
- The court did not decide the merits of the equal protection challenge; after vacating the circuit court's unconstitutional judgment, it dismissed the appeal because no valid judgment remained and remanded the cause for further proceedings.
Key quotations
“Regardless of the impact of any societal evolution that may have occurred since we issued our decision in Kujawinski, that holding remains directly on point here, and the trial court committed serious error by not applying it.” (¶ 13)
“As in Blumenthal, while the trial court is free to question the continued vitality of Kujawinski, it lacks the authority to declare that precedent a dead letter.” (¶ 13)
Factual background
Rosemary Aulds and Charles Yakich were never married and had a daughter whose college expenses were at issue. Aulds petitioned under section 513 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act for Yakich to contribute to those expenses, and Yakich admitted he had the financial ability to pay but objected in part because he had not participated in the college-selection process. After initially ordering each parent to pay 40% of the prospective expenses, the circuit court later held section 513 unconstitutional as applied because unmarried parents lacked the same input into their children's college decisions as married parents.
Procedural history
Aulds filed a section 513 contribution petition seeking an equitable contribution from Yakich toward their daughter's anticipated college expenses. The circuit court initially ordered both parents to pay portions of the expenses, but later declared section 513 unconstitutional as applied and vacated the payment order. Aulds filed a direct appeal, which the Illinois Supreme Court allowed; the Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's constitutional judgment, dismissed the appeal because no valid judgment remained, and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The circuit court judgment declaring section 513 unconstitutional as applied was vacated. The appeal was dismissed, and the cause was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.