In re Marriage of Casey

3 Citing cases

  1. Burke v. Burke

    617 N.E.2d 959 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 7 times
    Distinguishing modification and supersession from modification without supersession under RURESA

    However, Illinois courts have read RURESA as providing the responding court with the authority to modify foreign support orders if they specify the intent to do so. Oetjen v. Oetjen (1981), 92 Ill. App.3d 699, 703, 48 Ill.Dec. 247, 250-251, 416 N.E.2d 278, 281-282; see also In re Marriage of Head (1989), 187 Ill. App.3d 159, 162, 135 Ill.Dec. 110, 112, 543 N.E.2d 345, 347 (court, interpreting Kansas law, held that Kansas RURESA order did not modify Illinois order because it lacked a clear statement of intent to do so); but see In re Marriage of Casey (1990), 198 Ill. App.3d 619, 620-621, 144 Ill.Dec. 804, 805-806, 556 N.E.2d 271, 272-273 (court quoted RURESA omitting "unless specifically provided" language and held that a support order entered under RURESA does not supersede any previous support order). Thus, the Illinois Court had the authority under Illinois law to modify the Indiana decree.

  2. Hill v. Hill

    Appeal No. C-010220, Trial No. A-8607533 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2002)

    The Gifford court relied on Section 31 of Illinois's URESA statute (the "anti-supersession" provision), which provided in part, In re Marriage of Casey (1990), 198 Ill. App.3d 619, 556 N.E.2d 271; Sullivan v. Sullivan (1981), 98 Ill. App.3d 928, 424 N.E.2d 957; Miller v. Miller (1994), 268 Ill. App.3d 132, 643 N.E.2d 288. (1988), 122 Ill.2d 34, 521 N.E.2d 929.

  3. In re Marriage of Kranz v. Kranz

    525 N.W.2d 777 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 4 times
    Stating that it "is sensible to require a responding court to enforce only the level of support it determines is reasonable under its laws," but maintaining that the responding court's "determination does not affect the enforceability of the support ordered in the initiating court's prior judgment"

    However, in a more recent case, In re Marriage of Head, 543 N.E.2d 345, 347 (Ill.App.Ct. 1989), the Illinois appellate court concluded that, in the absence of a clear statement of intent to nullify, when a responding court orders a lower amount than that ordered in the divorce, the original order remains unmodified and the responding court's order simply provides an additional enforcement remedy. Additionally, in In re Marriage of Casey, 556 N.E.2d 271, 272-73 (Ill.App.Ct. 1990), the Illinois court concluded that a support order issued pursuant to RURESA did not affect an earlier divorce judgment's order of support. Most jurisdictions that have decided whether the duty established by the responding court under RURESA displaced the prior duty have concluded that it did not. See Britton v. Floyd, 738 S.W.2d 408, 409-10 (Ark. 1987); Florida, Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Franklin, 630 So.2d 661, 665 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994); In re Marriage of Head, 543 N.E.2d 345, 347 (Ill.App.Ct. 1989); Wornkey v. Wornkey, 749 P.2d 1045, 1050 (Kan.Ct.App. 1988); Miskimon v. Miskimon, 433 N.W.2d 419, 422 (Mich.Ct.App. 1989); Campbell v. Jenne, 563 P.2d 574, 577 (Mont.