| |
Court?s Jurisdiction
Even if a court meets jurisdictional criteria, it may decline to exercise its jurisdiction, and it must in some cases if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum for making such determinations under the circumstances of the case and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. Klumpner v. Klumpner.
This Act [...]Even if a court meets jurisdictional criteria, it may decline to exercise its jurisdiction, and it must in some cases if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum for making such determinations under the circumstances of the case and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. Klumpner v. Klumpner.
This Act requires that the trial court decline jurisdiction once it is aware that it may be an inconvenient forum, and that the court of another state is more appropriate. In re Pavelcik.
Even where the requirements of 750 ILCS 35/4 are met and the court has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination, it may decline to exercise it if it finds that court to be an inconvenient forum for the determination under the circumstances of the case, and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. Noga v. Noga.
This Act involves a process in which the court must first resolve whether it has jurisdiction under 750 ILCS 35/4, and after such a finding, it must determine under this section and 750 ILCS 35/7 whether it should decline to exercise jurisdiction. In re Levy.
|
| |
Attorney Fee Affidavit
Atty. No.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT - SECOND DISTRICT
Z AN ILLINOIS
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff, v.
No. 2002
TAMMY
Defendant.
AFFIDAVIT REGARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES
I, Attorney of Record, being duly sworn on oath, having personal knowledge of the relevant herein, and if called as a witness would competently testify as follows:
1. That Affiants are attorneys, licensed to practice law in [...]
Atty. No.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT - SECOND DISTRICT
Z AN ILLINOIS
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff, v.
No. 2002
TAMMY
Defendant.
AFFIDAVIT REGARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES
I, Attorney of Record, being duly sworn on oath, having personal knowledge of the relevant herein, and if called as a witness would competently testify as follows:
1. That Affiants are attorneys, licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois since 1988, and 1990 respectively, and that they is paid $100.00 per hour for office time and $125.00 per hour for court time.
2. That Affiants have rendered the usual and customary services as the attorneys for the Plaintiff in regards to the above action and other relief.
3. That the attached itemized statement, marked Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein, as to the services rendered regarding this case is correct to the best of our knowledge.
FURTHER AFFIANTS SAYETH NOT.
Attorney
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS
COUNTY OF C O O K )
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief as to such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true.
Attorney
See Also: Divorce Las Vegas
|
| |
Non-Marital Property
Gift
The circuit court’s conclusion that the bracelet given to petitioner by respondent’s mother, who carried insurance on it, belonged to the petitioner was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence; therefore, bracelet was not included in marital property. In re Simmons
The trial court erred in awarding gold cross to petitioner wife as her separate [...]Gift
The circuit court’s conclusion that the bracelet given to petitioner by respondent’s mother, who carried insurance on it, belonged to the petitioner was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence; therefore, bracelet was not included in marital property. In re Simmons
The trial court erred in awarding gold cross to petitioner wife as her separate non-marital property where the evidence established that it was given to husband by his uncle many years prior to the marriage and there was no affirmative proof of an intention to make a gift to the wife. In re Uluhogian
Improvement
The stores owned by a husband prior to the marriage remained non-marital despite their absorption of some marital resources because it was permissible for one spouse to improve the other spouse’s non-marital property without making that property marital. In re Kennedy
Individual Retirement Account
Where an Individual Retirement Account was treated as the exclusive property of husband since he used the account as an adjustment to income on his separate tax return, this was property acquired solely by husband during the marriage and fell within the exclusion of the prenuptial agreement. In re Burgess
Investment
The interest earned during the marriage on one spouse’s investment account was her non-marital property, as an increase in the value of property acquired before marriage remained non-marital property. In re Deem
Legislative Intent
The intent of this section as a whole was designed to eliminate disparity between the marriage partners; however, the exceptions (1) through (6) of subsection 9a) of this section manifest the legislative purpose to preserve the character of non-marital property in those situations where the actions of the parties have not created ambiguity. In re Smith
Test
Where property was acquired before marriage, title is a relevant indicator to determine at the time of dissolution whether the property has remained non-marital. In re Drennan
See Also: Divorce Lawyers New York
|