DOCKETTH

E

The Official Publication of the Lake County Bar Association • Vol. 23, No. 8 • August 2016

Fall Luncheon Series

ARDC Update

TuesdayNovember 8

Greenbelt Cultural Center

2016 Updateswith James J. Grogan

Pro Bono Awards

TuesdayOctober 11

Waukegan City Hall

Presentation of the

Wayne Flanigan Awardand

Volunteer Lawyer Award

Candidate Debates

TuesdaySeptember 20Glen Flora Country Club

Lake County State’s Attorney: Matt Stanton

and Michael G. Nerheim

Lake County CircuitCourt Clerk:

Erin Cartwright Weinstein and Keith Brin

A publication of the

300 Grand Avenue, Suite AWaukegan, Illinois 60085

(847) 244-3143 • Fax: (847) 244-8259www.lakebar.org • info@lakebar.org

THE DOCKET EDITORIAL COMMITTEEJeffrey A. Berman,Co-Editor

Hon. Daniel L. Jasica,Co-EditorJennifer C. Beeler

Hon. Michael J. FuszDeborah L. Goldberg

Hon. Charles D. JohnsonSarah A. Kahn

Kevin K. McCormickHon. Raymond J. McKoski

Robert A. MonahanTracy M. Poulakidas

Stephen J. RiceNeal A. Simon

Hon. James K. SimonianMichael S. Strauss

Rebecca J. WhitcombeAlex Zagor

STAFFChristopher T. Boadt, Exec. DirectorVirginia M. Elliott, Assistant Director

ContentsTHE DOCKET • Vol. 23, No. 8 • August 2016

To place an ad or for information on advertising rates, call (847) 244-3143. Submission dead-line: first day of month preceding the month of publication. All submissions must be made in electronic format (high resolution PDF or JPG format at a resolution of 300 pixels per inch or more.) See www.lakebar.org/html/docketRates.asp.

The Docket is the official publication of the Lake County Bar Association, 300 Grand Avenue, Suite A, Waukegan, Illinois 60085 (847) 244-3143, and is published monthly. Subscriptions for non-members are $45.00 per year.

Reproduction in whole or part without permis-sion is prohibited. The opinions and positions stated in signed material are those of the au-thors and not necessarily those of the Associa-tion or its members.

All submitted manuscripts are considered by the Editorial Board. All letters to the editor and articles are subject to editing. Publications of advertisements is not to be considered as an endorsement of any product or service adver-tised unless otherwise stated.$1.75 per word (Rate for LCBA Members)

$2.75 per word (Rate for Non-Members)

$3.50 per word (Rate for LCBA Members)

$4.50 per word (Rate for Non-Members)

Classified AdvertisingStandard

TextBoldText

Classified Advertisement may contain as many words, numbers, symbols and boldface type.

$600 per issue (Full Color)$750 per issue (Full Color)Back Cover

Inside Front orInside Back Cover

Full Page1/2 Page

1/4 Page1/8 Page

ADSIZE

ONEISSUE

6ISSUES

12ISSUES

$70$120$175$295

$65$110$160$270

$60$100$145$245

Color ad rates: add $199 per issue to theabove stated rates, excludes cover ads.

Advertising Rates

FEATURES 8 Issues in Dividing

Retirement Plans: Beyond the Basics

BY KATHLEEN CURTIN AND KEVIN KANE

14 Recognition and Enforcement of Out-of-State ‘Second Parent’ Adoption Decrees

BY SO YOUNG PARK

18 ‘Once More unto the Breach, Dear Friends, Once More’: The Illinois Supreme Court Addresses Another Question Pertaining to Allocation of Burden of Proof in Criminal Matters

BY JEFFREY A. BERMAN

COLUMNS 2 The President’s Page Oh How Far We’ve Come! BY DONALD J. MORRISON

4 The Chief Judge’s Page Respect, Civility, and the

Rule of Law BY CHIEF JUDGE JORGE L. ORTIZ

6 LC Bar Foundation You Can Meet the Most

Interesting People Kayaking

BY MELANIE K. RUMMEL PRESIDENT

22 The Meeting Minutes June 16, 2016 BY STEPHEN J. RICE

26 Restaurant Review Mambo Italiano BY GARY SCHLESINGER

LCBA EVENTS 3 New LCBA Members 5 Committee Chit Chat 5 Calendar of Events 20 Coffee at the Courthouse 21 Observe Veterans Day 23 The Grapevine 24 Fall Luncheons 24 Annual Debtor Creditor

Rights Seminar 25 Shred Event 27 Child Representative

Training 27 Criminal Law Conference 28 LCBA Golf Outing Back LCBA Golf Outing

The Docket2

So this is the third President’s Page that I have written. The

first article was about the LCBA’s position regard-ing the construction of the new criminal court’s tower. The second page highlighted the renova-tion project on the new home of the LCBA.

For the remaining ten months of my term as

LCBA President, it is im-perative that the Board of Directors, the committee chairs, and I remember that the above initiatives, as important as they are, are about brick and mortar. But the backbone of the LCBA has been—and must remain—the programs that have been developed over the years, and which benefit our members and the people we serve.

Many of you were present at the installation dinner in June. There, the LCBA Presidents who have had the honor of working with our Execu-tive Director, Christopher Boadt, recognized him for his dedicated leadership. The following examples illustrate the LCBA’s ac-complishments and pro-grams over the past nine years, during which Chris has been our Executive Director:

• The LCBA has seen a 50% increase in membership, from approximately 650

to 1,100 members.

• The LCBA budget has increased by 250%.

• Our CLE program has transformed from offering four events per year to now offering 20 revenue-generat-ing CLE events per year, in addition to offering 50 free CLE hours per year.

• The LCBA now has its own website, social media tools including Twitter and Facebook, and has instituted web-site access to the public, and member advertising on our website.

• The relationship

between the LCBA and the Lake Coun-ty judiciary has strengthened to the point that the Bar Association is now an integral part of the overall admin-istration and plan-ning for the legal community and the courthouse.

• The LCBA has instituted multiple outreach programs to the communi-ty for children in need, law student financial support, and programs to help felons and drug abusers who need support and re-sources to safely and lawfully re-enter our community.

Oh How Far We’ve Come!

President’sPage

The

BY DONALD J.MORRISON

2016-17 OFFICERS & DIRECTORS

Donald J. MorrisonPresident

Jennifer J. HoweFirst Vice-President

Brian J. LewisSecond Vice-President

Richard N. KesslerTreasurer

Stephen J. RiceSecretary

Shyama S. ParikhHon. Daniel B. Shanes

Patricia L. CornellJoseph M. FuszTara R. Devine

Torrie M. Newsome

August 2016 3

• The LCBA joined Illinois and national associations that promote diversity and created a new diversity committee, with an emphasis on providing services to all minorities.

• The LCBA has instituted “green” programs, including volunteer clean-ing of a section of Washington Street in Waukegan, shredding events, and massive recy-cling events.

• The LCBA founded “The People’s Law School,” held at our local community college, which offers

four classes indi-vidually conducted over four weeks and provides free legal education and dia-logue with members of the community. Over 150 “students” have attended cer-tain sessions.

• The LCBA has transformed The Docket from a col-loquial newsletter to a professional, peer-reviewed legal magazine respected across the state.

Although I will be devoting much of my time as LCBA President to ensuring adequate access to justice regarding the construction of the new

criminal court’s tower, as well as on our renovation project for the new home of the LCBA, make no mistake that my primary goal as LCBA President will be to maintain and enhance the programs and services that we provide to our members and the people we serve. I certainly will not be doing this alone. Many thanks in advance to Christo-pher Boadt and the LCBA staff, the Board of Direc-tors, and the committee chairpersons for the year 2016-2017. For a list of these committee chair-persons and their contact information, please see the roster located in this Docket issue.

Attorneys

New LCBAMembers

Welcome

Greg AdamoClingen, Callow & McLean

Devon BrucePower, Rogers & Smith

Jennifer CarrollNewland & Newland

J. Andrew HarrisonPharMEDium Services

Constance PalasAttorney at Law

Judy ShammoThe Rogers Law Group

Sean TrauschAttorney at Law

AssociatesAnabel Rodgriquez

Leader One Financial Corp

Eagle Sponsor

Gibson Lewiscongratulates the

LCBA on another successful

golf outing!

The Docket4

Our nation has once again recently witnessed a num-

ber of horrific tragedies. Orlando, Dallas, and St. Joseph County, Michigan, now represent the latest massacres in this seeming-ly never-ending cycle of violence that our country has had to endure. While writing this column, I was trying to comprehend what happened in Nice when word of yet another tragic massacre of police officers was reported, this time in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Mass shootings of civilians and attacks on law-enforcement officers have become so commonplace that we are becoming desensitized to news of them. We have experienced a breakdown in respect and civility in our national and social discourse, and many have lost confidence that justice and the rule of law will prevail.

These turbulent times are not unprecedented and are reminiscent in many ways of our not so distant past. During the

1960s, we experienced the assassinations of Presi-dent Kennedy, Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. Racial strife and riots engulfed many of our cities, free expression and assembly were under attack and police officers were often targets. Our country was also mired in the Vietnam War. An-ti-war and other protests abounded, and incompre-hensible events dominat-ed the news. Many have opined that mass murder-ers Charles Whitman (the University of Texas Clock Tower sniper) and Richard Speck unleashed a sick-ness from which our so-ciety has never recovered when they perpetrated their unspeakable crimes in 1966.

The Constitution is the foundation for the freedoms we cherish. Freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of religion and the right to bear arms are at the center of some of the struggles and difficulties that we as

a nation are undergoing. When a society loses con-fidence in the rule of law, chaos almost always en-sues. Whatever one’s polit-ical persuasion, religion, race, age, gender or sexual orientation may be, we cannot allow discrimina-tion or bigotry of any kind to triumph. Whether it is a protestor or protector, we must ensure that both are treated with respect and dignity. We must all do our part to promote civility in our discourse and in our profession. We must practice civility each and every day and instill confidence in the rule of law.

Those of us privi-leged to serve in the legal profession have a special responsibility to elevate

the discourse in our com-munity. I call on all of us to re-commit ourselves to decency and civility and to reach out to our schools, churches, mosques, syn-agogues, and community organizations to ask what we can do to improve re-lations in our community. We must stand in support of our law enforcement of-ficers and first responders. An eye for an eye is not the solution to the many real and perceived injustices which take place in our society. If we as a commu-nity are to move forward, we must stand together in a spirit of brotherhood, mutual respect, and civili-ty, and we must do all that we can to ensure that the rule of law prevails.

Respect, Civility, and the Rule of Law

Chief Judge’sPage

The

BY CHIEF JUDGEJORGE L. ORTIZ

August 2016 5

September 9Shred Event

LCBA, Waukegan

September 20Membership Luncheon

Glen Flora Country Club

September 21 & 22Child Representative Training

College of Lake County, Grayslake

October 11Membership Luncheon

Pro Bono AwardsWaukegan City Hall

October 13-14Criminal Law Conference

Milwaukee, WI

November 23rd Annual Debtor Creditor

Rights SeminarWhite Deer Run Golf Club,

Vernon Hills

November 8Membership Luncheon

ARDC Update with James Grogan

Greenbelt Cultural Center

November 18Foundation Charity

Fundraiser

December 2Membership Holiday PartyMickey Finn’s, Libertyville

Calendar ofEvents

The66

Register for these eventson-line at: www.lakebar.org

The Debtor Creditor Right’s Committee will hold its Third Annual Seminar Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at the White Deer Run Golf Course Facility in Vernon Hills! The Committee is currently in the process of assembling its panel of speakers and working on the materials related thereto and hopes to see many members of the Lake County Bar Association at the event.

***The Trusts and Estates Commit-

tee is pleased to announce an upcom-ing Guardianship Help Desk Training Seminar on September 16, 2016, tenta-tively scheduled for 12:30-2:30 PM. If you’ve ever been interested in volun-teering at the Help Desk, this is your chance to learn the ropes and practice the skills you learned earlier this year. Those interested in either attending or presenting should contact Kathryn Shores (shores@llphlegal.com).

***The Young & New Lawyers Com-

mittee is hosting a networking event on August 18, 2016 at Mickey Finn’s in Lib-ertyville from 5:30-6:30 p.m. We have a private space reserved, and the first

$200.00 in beverages is being sponsored by Steven Kopala of Northwestern Mu-tual. RSVP online at www.lakebar.org

***The Family Law Committee contin-

ues to plan its 2017 Family Law Semi-nar in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, April 20-April 23, 2017. In addition to the seminar, planning is moving forward regarding possible activities, such as a cruise or bonfire beach dinner. There might also be an event hosted by the Broward County Bar Association.

Subcommittees continue to work with the judges to structure a system for experts to be appointed regarding financial issues, as well on a seminar for GALs and child representatives. The seminar is planned to move forward September 21 and 22 at the College of Lake County in Grayslake.

The Family Law Committee typi-cally meets the third Wednesday of the month at noon in C-105, but is taking a break over the summer, and will recon-vene at a date soon to be determined in September.

Chit ChatCommittee

The Docket6

Once winter is safely in the rearview mirror, I like to

brush off my kayak, recon-nect with some paddling groups I have joined over the years, and take to the rivers, streams and lakes of Illinois and Wisconsin. This year again, I participated in the 18.5 mile Canoe/Kayak Marathon down the Des Plaines River. When I can escape to the Northwoods, I join up with the Lady Yakkers or the Northwoods

Ski Touring Association and paddle some of the rivers, lakes and streams up north.

A few weeks ago, I convinced Mike to join me for a paddle down the Chippewa River starting at Ladysmith, Wisconsin, which was organized by one of the paddle groups. If you are still reading up to this point, you are wondering what any of this has to do with the law or the Bar. You may want to keep reading. I was equally surprised to find a connection.

Mike started talking to a member of the group paddling a blue kayak, whom neither of us had met before. He and Mike were paddling at about the same pace and entered into an easy conversation.

During a shore break from paddling, I was intro-duced to Mike’s new friend, retired Senior Judge Mike Newmeister. We naturally began to explore our mutu-al legal backgrounds. Mike Newmeister finished his undergraduate career with a double major in com-puter science and political science. He graduated from Pepperdine Law School in 1976, and started practic-ing law. He was appointed

to the Iowa Bench in 1987, where he served for 20 years. However, he was al-ways determined to put his computer science skills to work in the legal field.

He found his oppor-tunity. He was appointed to chair the Iowa Court In-formation System steering committee (ICIS), where he served for 10 years. He was determined not to retire until the Iowa Courts were entirely paperless. After two years of committee meet-ings to draw up the rules and guidelines to guarantee a smooth transition from paper, on January 4, 2009, the first Iowa County, Plym-outh, went paperless. On July 1, 2015, all 99 counties in Iowa became paperless. The first state in the nation to be entirely paperless! With his mission accom-plished, Mike retired last year.

I did a bit of research

after returning home from the kayak trip to find out more about the system. Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady com-mented in one article that the Electronic Data Man-agement System (EDMS) has transformed the way the Iowa courts operate. The Chief Justice cited the fact that more and more users have access to the system, including citizens, law enforcement officers, the Department of Human Services, and hospitals; and it gives them prompt and easy access to judges, court records, and the court system. My research also found statements that the court clerks have found that the EDMS has relieved them from case manage-ment so they can work on other duties such as helping self-represented litigants. The system also allows judges, court employees,

You Can Meet the Most Interesting People Kayaking

BY MELANIE K. RUMMELPRESIDENT

Board of TrusteesMelanie K. Rummel

PresidentCarey J. Schiever

Vice PresidentJoann M. Fratianni

SecretaryMark B. Peavey

TreasurerCarlton R. Marcyan

Immediate Past PresidentScott B. Gibson

Fredric Bryan LesserSteven P. McCollumMichael G. Nerheim

Marjorie I. SherMichael J. WallerBrian J. Wanca

Hon. Fred Foreman (ret.)Brian J. Lewis

Jennifer L. AshleyJeffrey A. Berman

Diane Brazen GordonKeith C. Grant

Hon. Henry C. Tonigan (ret.)Hon. Joseph R. Waldeck (ret.)

August 2016 7

lawyers, residents, and law enforcement personnel to work on or file cases from any location in the state 24 hours a day, seven days a week; and the documents can be viewed by multiple people at the same time. The EDMS also provides for sharing or compart-mentalizing services across counties, something very helpful as the courts deal with tight budgets and the push to share services across governmental enti-ties. A clerk’s office in one or more counties in Iowa can now process all the traffic cases issued in other counties across the state, or the clerk’s office in one county can absorb some of the overflow of a clerk’s office in another county.

I found Mike’s sto-ry to be a lesson in what

vision, determination, inspiration and leadership can accomplish. Our own County is striving to have electronic filing mandatory in civil cases in 2018, and an electronic case manage-ment system in place in the future.

Mike share with me a some other aspects of the Iowa court system that I found interesting. Iowa has a unified court system, meaning that a District Judge can hear a civil case one day and a criminal case the next. They are support-ed by a number of associate judges, but interestingly, the most numerous judi-cial officers are the judicial magistrates. Judicial magis-trates are attorneys named by an appointing commis-sion who are given juris-diction over simple misde-

meanor cases, county and municipal infractions, and small claims. Magistrates have authority to issue search warrants, conduct preliminary hearings, and hear certain involuntary hospitalization matters.

Some counties in Wisconsin have a similar system. As an attorney licensed to practice in Wisconsin, I have probated

a case in Milwaukee with-out ever appearing before a judge. In Kenosha County, the entire probate process is done through the mail.

I find it interesting to see how the judicial systems in other states are orga-nized—all in the interest of administering the best system of justice to our citizens, who we attorneys also serve.

Save the DateShuffle up and deal casino night

November 18, 2016

The Docket8

THE FIRST STEP – DON’T OVERLOOK RETIREMENT PLANS

For many couples, the largest asset they possess will be retirement plans acquired during the marriage. The first precaution is to make sure to provide for the division of all re-tirement plans.

Most older Fortune 500 com-panies have both defined-benefit “pension” plans and defined-contri-bution “401k” plans. Newer or smaller companies are trying to get away from pension plans and have just 401k plans. If you have a case involv-ing an Abbott employee, you know they have both.

All Illinois public sector employees have a defined-benefit pension, which can be divided by

a Qualified Illinois Domestic Rela-tions Order. They might also have a defined-contribution 457 plan, like a 401k Plan. You can usually find if there is a defined-contribution plan by looking for the deduction on their pay stubs. In most cases such plans can be divided by a QDRO.

All federal government em-ployees will have a defined-benefit pension plan (FERS or CSRS). They might also have a defined-contribu-tion Thrift Savings Plan. Both plans can be divided by court orders similar to a QDRO.

Military personnel will have a pension, but to receive the pension benefit they generally have to serve 20 years active duty. Military per-sonnel might contribute to a Thrift

Issues in Dividing Retirement PlansBeyond the Basics

BY KATHLEEN CURTIN AND KEVIN KANE

This article is an adaptation of the authors’ presentation at the 2016 LCBA Family Law Seminar in Nashville, Tennessee. It is intended to provide practical assistance to divorce practitioners dealing with retirement plans when they draft or negotiate

a Marital Settlement Agreement in a divorce case, even when the attorneys do not in-tend to prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders or other documents to divide the retirement plans to implement the agreement themselves.

Kathleen Curtin is the solo practitioner at Curtin Law, LLC. Kathleen concentrates her practice in the division of retirement accounts. She frequently provides training on the QDRO process.

Kevin M. Kane graduated from the University Of Illinois College Of Law in 1978. He is partner in the Law Offices of Goldberg and Kane handling family law and probate cases, with a focus on dividing retirement plans.

August 2016 9

marriage, it is often difficult to determine what part is marital and what part is non-marital. This is not an issue with a defined-benefit pension plan because it can be divided by a coverture formula.

The 2016 revision to the IMDMA clarifies the burden of proof in §503(b)(2). The statute creates a presumption that all retirement plans participated in during the marriage are marital. That presumption can be overcome by “clear and convincing evidence.” This heavy burden of proof should eliminate a lot of con-tests. The new statutory provision codifies a trend that was developing in the case law.

It may be difficult or impossible for plan participants to prove the value of their plan at the time of marriage. Plan participants may not have saved their statements. The Plan Administrator may not have records going back years because the plan changed financial man-agers. If you represent the plan participant, advise your clients to go through their old records or talk to their employer or Plan Administrator to

try to document the history of their investment in the plan.

A participant can also argue that he or she should receive any appreciation in value of the non-marital portion that occurred during the marriage. Today, however, the participant probably would have to hire an actuary or similar expert to be able to trace the change in value of each asset in the plan over the course of the marriage.

THE THIRD STEP – SURVIVORSHIP ISSUESWhen dividing a traditional pension plan, protect

your client by being alert to survivorship issues in case the participant should die before the alternate payee. In most cases, pensions will only be paid out in the form of monthly payments once the participant reach-es “minimum retirement age” and retires. Fortunately, defined-contribution 401K-type plans can usually be divided immediately, so that survivorship is not normal-ly an issue.

A survivor benefit is different than a death benefit. A death benefit is generally a predetermined lump sum payment upon a plan member’s death.

A survivor benefit is a monthly payment to an alternate payee that is paid upon the death of the plan member. Survivor benefits can be paid in addition to death benefits. There are two types of survivor bene-

Savings Plan (TSP). If a service member goes from military to federal civilian employment, he or she might have two TSPs.

Some trade union workers have multiple pensions and a 401k plan. They may have a local and an interna-tional pension. This is common with union electricians and bricklayers. Union plans are consolidating and changing administrators, so it can get confusing. Mem-bers may legitimately overlook a plan.

Don’t forget previous employers. Don’t write off bankrupt employers—a pension may be taken over by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, or another corporation may have assumed responsibility for the pension.

Non-qualified exec-utive plans: ERISA has maximum income limits for “qualified” plans. The IRS 2016 annual compensation limit for a qualified retirement plan is $265,000. De-pending on the type of plan, annual benefit or contribution limits vary. Executives and highly compensated employees may have supplemental plans that are not qual-ified under ERISA. These plans do not have to accept a QDRO. Because QDROs are a convenience for the plan participant, some companies will honor a QDRO or will do so for some employees. If the plan will not honor a QDRO, you have to look at entering an order that the participant make direct payments to the alternate payee, or set-off other assets.

PROTECT YOURSELF AND YOUR CLIENTThe Second District Appellate Court has given us a

“Get out of Jail Free” card. It is the case of In re Marriage of Hall.1 In that case, the appellate court reversed the trial court for denying a motion to reform the judgment to divide a retirement plan the parties had overlooked. The appellate court said that the language of the judg-ment made it clear that the parties intended to divide all retirement assets. You should include a statement in the Marital Settlement Agreement that “It is the parties’ intent to equally divide the marital portion of all retire-ment plans,” if that is indeed what you do intend.

THE SECOND STEP – HOW MUCH IS “MARITAL?”

When dividing a defined-contribution retirement plan (401K) where a portion was acquired before the

“Protect your client by being alert to

survivorship issues in case the participant

should die before the alternate payee.”

1 404 Ill. App. 3d 160 (2d Dist. 2010).

The Docket10

the state takes over paying the monthly benefit and it will pay only a $3,000 death benefit. The former spouse will now be entitled to 50% of $3,000, or $1,500. The former spouse receives no survivor benefit and not much of a death benefit.

If your client is eligible for a share of a military pension, you should ask that the service member be required to maintain a Survivor Benefit Payment (“SBP”), which continues payments to the ex-spouse if the ser-vice member dies. If there is an ex-spouse and a current spouse, the government will not divide the SBP between spouses. Only one spouse or former spouse can receive the benefit. This is significant to a service member who plans on remarrying and would like the new spouse to receive the survivor benefits. It is also significant to a former spouse who wants or needs survivor benefits. The military will not enforce a SBP unless the survivor benefit is granted in a court order. Generally, the court order is the judgment for dissolution. Even if a survivor benefit is granted in a court order, a former spouse may still lose the survivor benefit unless an election for survivor benefit is filed within one year of the Order granting SBP. Either the service member or the former spouse of the service member can make the election. If a former spouse remar-ries before the age of 55, the SBP ceases. However, if the subsequent marriage ends in death or divorce, the SBP is reinstated.

For federal employees such as postal workers or air traffic controllers participating in the Civil Service Re-tirement System (“CSRS”) or Federal Employees Retire-ment System (“FERS”), survivor benefits can be divided between former spouses or between a current spouse and former spouse like in private plans. Like the military former spouse, however, if a former spouse remarries before the age of 55, then that former spouse loses his or her survivor benefits under CERS or FERS. Again, if the subsequent marriage ends in death or divorce, SBP is reinstated.

You should also be cognizant that survivorship ben-efits have a cost. Someone will be responsible for paying that cost. Depending upon the plan rules, the employer, the participant, or the alternate payee may pay for pre-re-tirement survivor benefits. The post-retirement survivor benefits can be allocated to one or both parties depend-ing upon the division of the benefit. For example, with a “separate” interest benefit, such as a private industry plan where the member is not yet retired, the former spouse’s share of the benefit is separated and actuarially adjusted for his or her own life so there is no cost to the participant and the former spouse receives a benefit until that per-son’s death. On the other hand, with a “shared” interest benefit, such as a military or federal pension or a private industry pension where the parties do not elect a separate interest, the former spouse receives a share of the partici-pant’s benefit. That benefit is not separated. The survivor benefit cost is deducted from the pension payment and then each party receives their respective share. Therefore,

fits: a qualified pre-retirement survivor benefit, and a qualified post-retirement survivor benefit. A qualified pre-retirement survivor annuity may be paid when the member dies before retiring. If you represent the alternate payee and the member dies before retiring and you did not obtain a qualified pre-retirement survivor annuity, your client may lose his or her benefits, because a pension is never paid.

A post-retirement survivor benefit may be paid if a member dies after retiring. A post-retirement survivor benefit is also not a pension; it is paid in lieu of the pen-sion. The pension stops upon the death of the member. When a member dies, his or her pension payments die too. But provision can be made for post-retirement survi-vor benefits to be paid for the life of the surviving spouse.

For many private industry pension plans governed by ERISA—for example Abbott or Allstate—survivorship issues can be avoided by entering a “separate interest” QDRO because the plan “severs” the alternate payee’s interest from the participant’s interest. However, other company plans only “separate” the alternate payee’s inter-est when the benefit commences. That approach assures the alternate payee receives benefits for the rest of his or her life once the benefit commences. It does not, howev-er, protect the alternate payee’s benefits if the participant dies before the alternate payee commences receiving ben-efits. Therefore, the QDRO should still require pre-retire-ment survivor benefits be maintained under a “separate interest.” A “separate interest” is not available for military pensions, federal government pensions, or pensions governed by the Illinois Pension Code. It is therefore important to advise your client what, if any, benefits may be available to them as a survivor, and to make provision for those benefits.

The Illinois Pension Code governs teachers, police, fire, and municipal workers, and states that a QILDRO shall not apply to, or affect, the payment of any survi-vor’s benefits, disability benefit, life insurance benefit or health benefit.2 The pension code does not allow a QIL-DRO to provide survivor benefits. It does provide a death benefit, but remember that a death benefit is different from a survivor benefit.

For example, say a member retires after 30 years un-der the Illinois Municipal Retirement Plan. On the mem-ber’s statement of benefits as of the date of retirement, the death benefit is listed at $250,000 (employee contri-butions). The former spouse is granted 50% of the benefit in the judgment for dissolution of marriage. The former spouse is under the belief that upon the member’s death, they will receive 50% or $125,000 as the death benefit. But this is not always the case. The employee’s contributions are used to pay the member’s monthly benefit. If the member’s monthly retirement benefit is $5,000, then af-ter 4 years and 2 months of receiving retirement benefits, the employee’s contributions are depleted. At that point

2 40 ILCS 5/1-119(b)(4).

August 2016 11

a portion of the disability pay.6

To avoid an unfair result because a retired service member elects to receive disability pay instead of re-tired pay, many courts have ordered payment from other sources and required a service member who waived a portion of retired pay in order to receive disability pay to reimburse his former spouse from other assets for the value of the share she was deprived of as a result of his actions.7 It is advisable to address the issue of disability in the dissolution by including language in a martial settle-ment agreement that requires a member to reimburse a former spouse for any reduction in pension benefits due to receiving future disability.

CONCLUSIONIf you follow these steps when negotiating and draft-

ing the Marital Settlement Agreement, you will ensure that your client receives the share of marital assets to which he or she is entitled. Preparing the QDRO will then be the final step to transfer the assets you have secured.

the survivor benefit cost is divided between the parties in same percentage as their interest unless they adjust the division of the benefit to allocate the cost differently.

The final issue with survivor benefits is what happens if a party dies before the court enters the QDRO. Some plan administrators will honor a QDRO entered after the death of the participant, but many will not. Also, some courts have treated the death of the participant as ending a former spouse’s right to enter a QDRO dividing retire-ment benefits. However, a recent Illinois case the Second District Appellate Court reversed the Circuit Court of Lake County and allowed the former spouse to receive pension benefits granted in the dissolution even though the QDRO was not entered before the death of the participant.3 It is interesting to note in this case that the subsequent spouse may have to pay the benefits.

POTENTIAL PROBLEM – DISABILITY PAYMENTS

Disability payments present another area of concern for parties dividing retirement plans. Disability payments may or may not be divided between the parties when the pension has been divided between the parties in a judgment for dissolution of marriage. Generally, under a private pension plan, you can divide disability pay-ments. The Illinois Pension Code, however, does not allow the division of disability pay for its members. The Code states that a “QILDRO shall not apply to or affect the payment of any survivor’s benefits, disability bene-fit, life insurance benefit or health benefit.”4

This has had far reaching implications. If a par-ticipant is determined to be disabled before he or she retires, he or she can continue receiving disability pay-ments indefinitely and never elect to receive a retirement pension, thus depriving the ex-spouse of the share of the pension awarded in the dissolution of marriage. But in 2015, Illinois case law distinguished disability pay from a disability pension and allowed a disability pension to be divided.5 Faced with compelling facts, the appellate court affirmed a trial court order that the disabled spouse make direct payment from his disability benefit to his former spouse even though the original judgment only awarded a portion of retirement benefits.

A similar issue frequently occurs with Military Re-tired Pay. Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (“USFSPA”), “disposable retired pay” can be divided in a dissolution action. Disability pay is excluded from the definition of “disposable retired pay.” There are two different types of disability pay: (1) military disability retired pay, and (2) VA disability compensa-tion. Both are excluded from the USFSPA definition of disposable retired pay and the military will not accept an order providing for direct payment to a former spouse of

3 Platt v. Platt, 2015 IL App (2d) 141174.4 40 ILCS 5/1-119(b)(4).5 See In re Marriage of Benson, 2015 IL App (4th) 140682.

6 Note that although disability pay cannot be divided as marital property, it can be used to determine maintenance and child support. Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619 (1987).

7 In re Marriage of Nielsen, 341 Ill. App. 3d 863 (2d Dist. 2003)

The Docket12

August 2016 13

The Docket14

This article will recite the facts of the case, but its relevance has more to do with the issue of granting full faith and credit to other state courts’ issuance of a “second parent” adop-tion3 rather than the specific legal merits.

V.L. and E.L. were involved in a relationship from approximately 1995 until 2011. During the course of

the relationship, E.L. gave birth to a child in 2002 and to twins in 2004, through assisted reproductive technology. Both raised the children together as joint parents. Eventual-ly, the couple decided to formalize the parental relationship between V.L. and the children. In order to facilitate the process, E.L. and V.L. rented an apartment in Alpharetta, Georgia, and filed an adoption peti-tion in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia. On May 2007, with the mother’s consent, V.L. received

Recognition and Enforcement of Out-of-State ‘Second Parent’

Adoption DecreesBY SO YOUNG PARK

In early March, 2016, the United States Supreme Court in V.L. v. E.L.,1 unanimously re-versed a judgment of the Alabama Supreme Court2 holding that the adoption of three children under Georgia law by the mother’s former same-sex partner was invalid, and

requiring the court to give full faith and credit to the adoption order issued by a Georgia superior court. The Alabama Supreme Court had previously reversed an Alabama Court of Civil Appeal’s judgment that an evidentiary hearing should be conducted before awarding the female partner any visitation rights, on the ground that the Georgia court had no subject-matter jurisdiction under Georgia law to enter a judgment.

1 136 S. Ct. 1017 (2016).2 Ex parte E.L., No. 1140595, 2015 WL

5511249 (Ala. Sept. 18, 2015).3 Butler v. Adoption Media, LLC, 486

F.Supp.2d 1022, 1044 (N.D.Cal.2007) (“A ‘second parent’ adoption is an adoption of a child having only one living parent, in which that parent retains all of her pa-rental rights and consents to some other person—often her spouse, partner, or friend—adopting the child as a ‘second parent.’”)

So Young Park is a J.D.-Ph.D. student at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. She is pursuing her Ph.D. in Human Development and Family Studies, and her interest is in family law and education policy.

August 2016 15

on states’ rights, and the jurisdictional inquiry under it is also a limited one. When considering whether a foreign judgment should be enforced in a state, courts shall be guided by the principle generally to accord the judgment of another state the same respect and credit it would receive in the rendering state, unless in spe-cial circumstances where a record of a court of general jurisdiction is disproved “by extrinsic evidence, or by the record itself.”9 The Supreme Court will be consis-tent with its controlling precedent, being “slow to read ambiguous words, as meaning to leave the judgment

open to dispute, or as intended to do more than fix the rule by which the court should decide” in cases where the full faith and credit clause is concerned.10

Consequently, we can think about inter-state recognition of adoption decrees for future courts. States such as California, New York and the District of Columbia have

been allowing “co-parents” to seek parental rights by filing petitions to the state court even before the ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges,11 legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Most states, however, still limit the process of a “second parent” adoption to married couples.12 Adoption decrees are final judgments, and as such, should be entitled to full faith and credit in all states. It has become clear with the ruling in V.L. that adoption decrees may stand even if a specific type of adoption such as one allowing parental rights to a female partner of a child’s biological mother would not have been permitted in the state of litigation.13 In

a final judgment of approval which made her a legal second parent. V.L. was also listed as a parent on the children’s Alabama birth certificates.

V.L. and E.L. separated while living in Alabama. V.L. filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, in 2013, alleging E.L. had denied her access to the children and interfered with her ability to exercise her parental rights. The matter was transferred to the Family Court of Jefferson County where the court entered an order awarding V.L. scheduled visitation with the children. This order was later appealed by E.L. whose gravamen of petition was the Geor-gia court lacked sub-ject-matter jurisdiction on the initial adoption.

The Supreme Court in its per curiam opinion said § 19-8-2(a)4 of the Official Code of Georgia facially granted subject matter jurisdiction to the Georgia trial court in all adoption matters, and nothing rebutted the presumption that the Georgia court was a court of com-petent jurisdiction for the same-sex partner’s adoption5. The Supreme Court challenged the Alabama Supreme Court’s reliance on a different Official Code section6—requiring living parents to surrender their parental rights—because it did not speak in jurisdictional terms and no Georgia appellate court had construed it as juris-dictional.7 Thus, the Alabama Supreme Court’s inquiry of subject matter jurisdiction in the initial adoption decree was overturned.

WHAT DOES THE V.L. V. E.L. CASE TELL US?The United States Supreme Court made it clear

that the Full Faith and Credit clause8 is a limitation

“Adoption decrees are final judgments, and as such, should be entitled to full faith and credit in

all states.”

4 “(a) The superior courts of the several counties shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all matters of adoption, except such jurisdiction as may be granted to the juvenile courts.” Ga.Code Ann. § 19-8-2(a) (2016).

5 V.L., 136 S. Ct., at 1020-21.6 Ga. Code Ann. § 19-8-5(a) (“each such living parent ... has

voluntarily and in writing surrendered all of his rights to the child to that third person for the purpose of enabling that third person to adopt the child.”).

7 “It only provides a rule of decision to apply in determining if a particular adoption should be allowed,” and its mandatory requirements for an adoption, therefore, did not make it a juris-dictional statute. V.L., 136 S. Ct., at 1021.

8 The Full Faith and Credit clause provides that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” U.S. CONST. art. IV, §1.

9 V.L., 136 S. Ct. at 1020 (quoting Adam v. Saenger, 303 U.S. 59, 62 (1938)).

10 Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230 (1908).11 135 S. Ct. 2548 (2015).12 Courtney G. Joslin, Travel Insurance: Protecting Lesbian and

Gay Parent Families Across State Lines, 4 Harv. L. & Pol’y Rev. 31, 35 (2010); See e.g. Debra H. v. Janice R., 930 N.E.2d 184 (2010) (where the biological mother of a child had rebuffed her partner’s requests for second parent adoption, the partner could not use estoppel to create standing to request visitation rights after the demise of the partnership despite the partner’s two and a half-year relationship with the child).

13 There have been previous cases in some states inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling. See, e.g., Henry v. Himes, 14 F. Supp. 3d 1036, 1057 (S.D. Ohio 2014); Embry v. Ryan, 11 So. 3d 408, 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Finstuen v. Crutcher, 496 F.3d 1139, 1156 (10th Cir. 2007); Russell v. Brid-gens, 264 Neb. 217, 647 N.W.2d 56 (2002).

The Docket16

Georgia judgment when it started its opinion saying, “We review [the] issues de novo. We emphasize, how-ever, that our review of [the] issues does not extend to a review of the legal merits of the Georgia judgment...”18 Considering, however, Justice Shaw’s reason for the sole dissent was due to the majority opinion reviewing the merits of the case rather than limiting its scope to a jurisdictional one, this case also illustrates continued divergence can lead state courts to engage in “result-ori-ented legal gymnastics.”19

Hopefully, the Supreme Court did a better job in drawing the line than compared to its previous decision in Baker by Thomas v. General Motors Corp.,20 where it previously stated that the full faith and credit obligation is an “exacting” one. The Supreme Court, in making such point, also made it clear that a state cannot refuse to afford full faith and credit to final judgments even if they contravene that state’s public policy.21

other words, a state that does not permit “second par-ent” adoptions with two mothers or two fathers must nevertheless recognize a valid adoption decree entered in another jurisdiction.14 Similarly, where the second parent adoption occurred in a state recognizing such adoptions even to unwed couples, the state in which a child is born must issue an amended birth certificate listing the adoptive parent as a second parent.15 It is, thus, interesting to pay attention to how future courts will deal with situations where state government employees will not allow a similar practice in which a second parent benefited in another state.16

V.L. shows how emotionally divisive issues relating to same-sex couples can lead to conflicts between the States and the federal courts, as it did in Miller v. Davis.17 In V.L., the Alabama Supreme Court went out of its way to declare it was not inquiring into the merits of the

14 2 Ann M. Haralambie, Handling Child Custody, Abuse and Adop-tion Cases § 14:28.50, Westlaw (database updated Dec. 2015).

15 Id.; Finstuen v. Crutcher, 496 F.3d 1139, 1156 (10th Cir. 2007).16 Cf. Adar v. Smith 639 F.3d 146 (5th Cir. 2011) (Fifth Circuit held

for the Registrar who was willing to list either one of the adop-tive parents but not both because Louisiana law permits single parent adoption.)

17 123 F. Supp. 3d 924 (E.D. Ky. 2015) (suit to force Rowan Coun-ty Clerk’s Office to issue marriage licenses after Clerk would no longer issue marriage licenses to any couples, same-sex or opposite-sex).

18 Ex parte E.L., 2015 WL 5511249, at *3 (citation omitted).19 David F. Herr & Steven Baicker-McKee, Enforcement of Judge-

ment – Full Faith and Credit, FEDERAL LITIGATOR, April 2016, 31 No. 4 Fed. Litigator NL 13.

20 522 U.S. 222 (1998).21 Id. at 233-234 (“A court may be guided by the forum State’s

‘public policy’ in determining the law applicable to a controversy. But our decisions support no roving ‘public policy exception’ to the full faith and credit due judgments...The Court has never placed equity decrees outside the full faith and credit domain.”) (emphasis in original).

August 2016 17

The Docket18

responded to a report of a person with a gun at a residence in Chica-go.7 The police found Tolbert and another man in the gated front yard of the home.8 Several other people also were observed standing outside the house.9 The officers searched the area and recovered a loaded, black Ruger 9 mm pistol from the porch

7 2016 IL 117846 at ¶ 4.8 Id.9 Id.10 Id.

In People v. Tolbert, 6 the Supreme Court considered an appeal from the conviction of a 17-year-old defendant, Tolbert, who was arrested after police

‘Once More unto the Breach,Dear Friends, Once More’1The Illinois Supreme Court Addresses Another Question

Pertaining to Allocation of Burden of Proof in Criminal MattersBY JEFFREY A. BERMAN

Our courts continue to wrestle with the intertwined issues of statutory construction and related allocation of burdens of proof. A recent article in The Docket ad-dressed “the often unclear difference between an exemption and an affirmative de-

fense, and the burden of proof that goes with each regardless of label,”2 particularly in the context of a decision by the Third District in an appeal by a teenager who had been con-victed of the offense of unlawful consumption of alcohol by a minor.3 The Illinois Supreme Court more recently has chosen to visit a related topic, this time addressing burdens of proof in the context of the unlawful use of a weapon statute.4 In doing so, the Court ren-dered a decision that should serve to reinforce Judge Simonian’s earlier, prescient admoni-tion that practitioners in the area “must be careful in noticing the stated or unstated bur-dens of proof in criminal cases, and proceed accordingly depending on your side.”5

1 William Shakespeare, Henry V, Act III, Scene 1.

2 Hon. James K. Simonian, Exemptions or Affirmative Defenses: Whose Burden is it Anyway?, Vol. 23, No. 3, The Docket 8 (March, 2016) (“Exemptions”).

3 People v. Cannon, 2015 IL App. (3d) 130672.

4 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(I).5 Exemptions, supra, note 2, at 11.6 People v. Tolbert, 2016 IL 117846.

Jeffrey Berman, ofthe law firm of Anderson + Wanca, has extensive experience in complex commercial litigation and insurance coverage matters in state and federal courts across the country in the areas of Insurance, Insurance Coverage & Reinsurance Law. He presently serves as a Co-Editor of The Docket Committee.

August 2016 19

defective, citing statutory language providing that there is no criminal liability if a person is “on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person’s permission,” and holding that the State bore the burden of including that element in the charging instru-ment.21 Or stated another way, according to the Appellate Court, in order to establish Tolbert’s guilt for the charged offense, the State had to prove that he was not an invitee of the person on whose land he was arrested.22 As such, the Appellate Court reasoned, the State bore the burden of including that element in the charging instrument.23

The Appellate Court thus concluded that the State’s failure to allege the invitee element prej-udiced Tolbert’s defense, and it reversed the con-viction on that basis.24

The Illinois Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for leave to appeal.25 The Supreme Court summarized its view of the issue present-ed on appeal as:

A defendant who has been charged under Illinois’s aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute for possessing a handgun while under 21 years of age…will avoid criminal liability if the firearm was carried while “on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person’s per-mission”...At issue in this appeal is whether this invitee requirement is an element of the offense such that the State must plead and prove that the defendant was not an invitee at the time he possessed the handgun in order to establish guilt, or whether it is an exemption to the offense that the defendant must raise and prove.26

A unanimous Court concluded the invitee require-ment is an exemption, not an element of the offense, and reversed.

Writing for the Court, Justice Burke first observed that the question presented ultimately is one of statutory interpretation.27 She then stated that, rather than looking solely to where an exception is positioned in a statute when determining whether the exception is in fact an element of the offense that must be proved by the State, the Court determines generally whether the Legislature intended the exception to be “descriptive” of the offense, or whether the Legislature intended only to exempt cer-

of the house.10 According to the police officers, Tolbert ultimately admitted owning the gun.11 Tolbert was then arrested and charged with possessing an “uncased, loaded and immediately accessible” firearm,12 and with possessing a handgun while under 21 years of age.13 At the conclusion of a bench trial, Tolbert was convicted of both counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon.14 Tolbert was sentenced to two years of adult probation.15 He then appealed.16

On appeal, Tolbert argued that: (1) his conviction for the first charged offense should be vacated as unconstitu-tional; (2) his conviction for the second charged offense, possessing a handgun while under 21 years of age, also should be vacated because the statutory provision was unconstitutional; (3) the State failed to prove all of the elements of the charged offenses; (4) the State’s charging instrument was fatally defective; and (5) defense counsel was ineffective for, among other things, failing to move to suppress de-fendant’s statements to the police.17

The Appellate Court vacated Tolbert’s conviction on the first charge,18 holding the statute was unconstitution-al.19 With respect to the second charge,20 the Appellate Court found that the charging instrument was fatally

11 Id.12 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A); see 2016 IL 117846 at ¶ 3.13 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1)(a)(3)(I); see 2016 IL 117846 at ¶ 3.

Section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(I) of the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute provides: (a) A person commits the offense of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon when he or she know-ingly: (1) Carries on or about his or her person or in any vehicle or concealed on or about his or her person except when on his or her land or in his or her abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person’s permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm; [and] (3) One of the following factors is present:..(I) the person possessing the weapon was under 21 years of age and in possession of a handgun …, unless the person under 21 is engaged in lawful activities under the Wildlife Code or described in subsection 24-2(b)(1), (b)(3), or 24-2(f).

14 2016 IL 117846 at ¶ 5.15 Id.16 Id.17 Id. at ¶ 6.18 Under Section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A); see 2014 IL App (1st)

122343-U at ¶ 11.19 See 2016 IL 117846 at ¶ 7. The State had conceded in the

Appellate Court that Tolbert’s conviction under Section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) was unconstitutional. See 2016 IL 117846 at ¶ 7; 2014 IL App (1st) 122343-U.

20 Under Section 24-1.6(a)(1)(a)(3)(I); see 2014 IL App (1st) 122343-U at ¶ 15.

“The Supreme Court’s decision in Tolbert provides a cautionary

tale, and should remind prosecutors and defense attorneys

alike, that the jurisprudence on allocation of burden of proof

continues to evolve.”

21 See 2016 IL 117846 at ¶ 8.22 2014 IL App (1st) 122343-U at ¶ 15.23 Id.24 Id. at ¶¶ 16-18.25 2016 IL 117846 at ¶ 10.26 2016 IL 117846 at ¶ 1 (emphasis in original).27 Id. at ¶ 12.

The Docket20

prove that it did not exist.34

As such, the Supreme Court held that the Appellate Court had erred when it concluded “that the invitee re-quirement is an element of the offense of aggravated un-lawful use of a weapon.”35 Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the Appellate Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.36

The direct holding of People v. Tolbert may be limit-ed to the interpretation and application of the unlawful use of a weapon statute. However, just as was the case with the earlier Appellate Court decision in People v. Cannon, the Supreme Court’s decision in Tolbert pro-vides a cautionary tale, and should remind prosecutors and defense attorneys alike, that the jurisprudence on allocation of burden of proof continues to evolve, and great care must be taken to evaluate early and address the stated and unstated burdens of proof in criminal cases.37 Or, in other words, “Now ‘tis the spring, and weeds are shallow-rooted; Suffer them now, and they’ll o’ergrow the garden, And choke the herbs for want of husbandry.”38

tain acts or persons from the operation of the statute.28

The Court then noted that the section of the Crimi-nal Code titled “Exemptions”29 lists several categories of people and conduct that are exempted from provisions of the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute and the unlawful use of weapons statute.30 Among them was a provision that stated the statute does not apply to, or affect, “Carrying or possessing any … firearm on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person’s permission.”31 The Court concluded that this provision clearly signaled the legislature’s intent to withdraw, or exempt, invitees from the reach of the pertinent statutory provision.32

The Court, having observed that the plain language of section 24-2 established that the legislature intended for the invitee requirement to be an exemption to the offense, not an element, further stated that it was “not free to ignore the plain language of” the statute.33 It was, therefore, Tolbert’s burden to prove his entitlement to the exemption, and not the State’s obligation to charge and

28 Id. at ¶ 15, citing People v. Close, 238 Ill.2d 497, 508 (2010).29 720 ILCS 5/24-2.30 2016 IL 117846 at ¶ 16.31 720 ILCS 5/24-2(b)(5) (2012); see 2016 IL 117846 at ¶ 16.32 2016 IL 117846 at ¶ 16. The Court also noted that subsection

(h) also clearly places the burden of proving the exemption on the defendant. Id.; see 720 ILCS 5/24-2(h).

33 2016 IL 117846 at ¶ 20.

Grab a

FREE Cup of Coffee

8:00 – 9:00 a.m.September 16 • October 14

November 4

34 Id. at ¶ 17.35 Id. at ¶ 20.36 Id. at ¶¶ 22-24.37 See Exemptions, supra note 2, at 11.38 William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part II, Act III, Scene 1.

How to Get Medicaid & Government Assistance to Payfor Your Nursing Home Costs

The Law Office of

Anthony B. Ferraro, LLC

Attorneys and CPAs

The Elder Law, Estate & Trust, and Asset

Protection Law Firm

847.292.1220Columbia Centre 1

5600 N. River Road #764Rosemont, IL

www.abfarrarolaw.com

• Medicaid Planning & Applications

• Guardianship• Probate & Trust

Administration• Long-Term Care

Planning• Nursing Home

Contracts & Admission

• “Senior” Estate Planning

• Special Needs Planning

• Elder Law• Estate Planning• Estate Taxation

Call for a FREE 15-minute Telephone Consultation

– and –

Sign up for one of our FREE E-Courses today!

www.EstatePlanEssentialsGuide.comwww.VeteransBenefitReport.com

www.MedicaidNursingHomeGuide.com

August 2016 21

Paid Advertisement

Observe Veterans Day at the: Lake County Courthouse (North entrance)

18 North County StreetWaukegan, Illinois 60085

NOVEMBER 11, 2016 at 8:30 a.m.On Friday, November 11, 2016, the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, and the County of Lake will hold its fourth annual Veterans History Project program at the Lake County Courthouse.

This Veterans Day we have the opportunity to thank and honor 30 servicemen and women from World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War who put their lives at stake for our country’s freedom.

Please join us to say “THANK YOU” to all veterans, especially those we will honor at our short ceremony prior to commencing the Veterans History Project interviews.

Help us let them know we care about all of them.

join us as we thank our veterans for their service and keeping our homeland safe

Thank You to all the Volunteers and Supporters

Judicial and Attorney Volunteers

Court Reporter Volunteers

Young Marines

Nineteenth Judicial Veterans Court

Lake County Bar Foundation

Marine Corps League

Lake County Sheriff’s Office

Canteen Vending Services

Lake County Facilities

The Docket22

CONSENT AGENDA• Minutes from May

2016• New membersThe Board adopted

the consent agenda unani-mously.

DISCUSSION ITEMSTreasurer’s Report

The Treasurer and Executive Director recently met to prepare next year’s budget. Two expenses mer-it special attention in the coming year.

• First, if renovations on the office be-gin in February or March, as tentatively planned, it is un-likely that staff will be able to remain in the building while the work proceeds. The LCBA will likely require rent abate-ment during the period in which it must go elsewhere, and we need to begin looking for and pricing alternative space. The Associ-ation currently has no lease with the Bar Foundation, but is operating on a month-to-month basis.

The President sug-gested that either he and his family, or perhaps another

Association member, might be willing to host the LCBA at a rate less than what we currently pay. We currently pay $2,500 per month, and it was suggested that we budget for that same amount in the coming year.

• The second possi-ble extraordinary expense in the up-coming year involves planning for the sys-tem that would en-able our members to have a more full-fea-tured card for entry to the courthouse. The current system has been our trial system, and we may want to budget for a full-fledged solution in cooperation with the Executive Justice Council. Our current system generates ap-proximately $20,000 in revenue. Ultimate-ly, our vision is to have a system similar to the one that has been implemented in both DuPage Coun-ty and at the Daley Center. Because the system would impact court security and other County Building concerns, primary—or perhaps exclusive—funding

will likely come from the County.

A few other notes for the upcoming budgetary year:

• The installation dinner cost about $13,000 and should break even (Presi-dent Morrison gen-erously renewed his promise that it would break even).

• There will be a Presi-dent’s Dinner in lieu of the Gridiron in 2017.

• Our Directors and Officers Liability Policy expires on July 21 for the Associa-tion. We will contact our carrier to see if we can pay it through the end of the year.

• The golf outing presents the biggest upcoming sum-mer expense (but with corresponding revenue), and things should be relatively

quiet after that. In September, pro-gramming will again become more active.

• On the bookkeeping front, the Executive Director and Joe Modica continue to work together, and a new part-time bookkeeper is being sought. A question was raised as to

MEMBERS PRESENTDonald J. Morrison President

Jennifer J. Howe First Vice-President

Richard N. Kessler Treasurer

Stephen J. Rice Secretary

Vacant Immediate Past President

Shyama S. ParikhJoseph M. FuszPatricia L. CornellTara DevineTorrie NewsomeChris Boadt Executive Director

MeetingMinutes

The

BY STEPHEN J. RICEACTING SECRETARY

Board of Directors’ MeetingJune 16, 2016

August 2016 23

various un-cleared transactions, some of which are old. The Executive Director stated that some of the entries are data entry errors requir-ing clean up, but that not all of them are errors. Some will be cleared up by the next time we meet; others still need reconciling.

• Overall, the Treasur-er advised that we’re in good financial condition, and the outlook for next year is also good.

Review of Draft 2016-2017 Budget

A draft budget was circulated and the Board will address it at its next meeting.Report on Membership Dues Mailing

Revenue from the on-going dues cycle is arriving. The Executive Director reported that revenue for the rest of June should closely mimic what we gen-erated in the dues cycle for June 2015: $140,000. Our revenue figures are nearly constant with those from last year.Report and Discussion Regarding the Criminal

Courts Tower ResolutionPresident Morrison

will be meeting with Coun-ty Board Chair Aaron Law-lor on June 21. Compromise on the floors in the new court tower and on the case management system is still being pursued.

Separately, the Board discussed the issues sur-rounding getting to and from the Babcox Center. Possible solutions for providing attorneys indoor access to Babcox are also being explored. One sug-gestion questioned wheth-er a court security person could be stationed at the tunnel entrances to allow authorized people through the tunnel, thus avoiding the need for keys to be distributed to too many people, which creates secu-rity concerns.Consideration of Process to Review the Possibility of Increasing the Membership Dues for the Next Fiscal Year

The President is form-ing a committee composed of the Executive Director, First VP, and Board Mem-bers Joe Fusz and Shyama Parikh to explore what the future rate for LCBA dues should be. The last dues increase was nine years ago.

The Executive Director

and President will reach out to their respective counterparts in the collar counties to collect informa-tion on costs and offerings, with the intent that the Board’s ultimate decision be data-driven. Depending on the end result, the final step would involve the membership voting on any dues increase. A suggestion was made to explore addi-tional tiers of membership, especially in an effort to possibly make member-ship to younger members attractive. Another sugges-tion was to put together a survey for our members about what they’d like to see for programming. We last completed such a survey around four years ago. The Executive Director will endeavor to complete a survey by the next meeting.

Our target for complet-ing our information-gath-ering and final decision is November.Report Regarding Com-mittee Chair Appoint-ments

President Morrison reported that committee appointments are almost complete, and the full slate will be in our Board mate-rials for next month.

The meeting ad-journed around 1:10 p.m.

GrapevineThe

Jennifer Luczkowiak is Prairie State Legal Service’s new Director of Development (a position formerly held by Jeff Hamaker). Jennifer and her husband Matthew welcomed their third child, Sofia Florence, to the world on January 7. Jennifer was on maternity leave until July 1, at which time she took up her new role with Prairie State.

Jeff Thut has joined the firm of Noonan Perrillo & Thut in Waukegan.

Tim Johnston has formed his own firm, Libertyville Legal, LLC, and on June 1, 2016, moved his office to 121 West Church Street in Libertyville

Charlie and Robin DeMars Goodstein are happy to announce the birth of their grandson Graham Lennon Goodstein, son of Matt and Samantha Goodstein and brother of Harper on April 30. He and Samantha share a birthday.

The Docket24

Fall LuncheonsSeptember 20Candidate DebatesGlen Flora Country Club

October 11Pro Bono AwardsWaukegan

November 8ARDC Update with James GroganGreenbelt Cultural Center North Chicago

Register online now at www.lakebar.org

Save The Date

3rd Annual Debtor Creditor Rights Seminar

November 2, 2016

White Deer Run Golf ClubVernon Hills

August 2016 25

BulletinBoard

Bar

Gorgeous office space for law or general use located walking distance to Lake County Courthouse. Available now. 2,000 square foot building with six offices, conference room, reception area and two bathrooms. Central heat and air. Parking in back. Please contact property manager at greespopovichlaw@yahoo.com.

Old files cluttering up the office?Come to the LCBA Annual Shredding Event

and destroy all your old files!

Friday, September 9, 20168:00 - 11:00 a.m.

LCBA Office Parking Lot1-10 Boxes FREE • 11+ (unlimited) - $25

You may also bring media (floppy disc, cd-rom, etc.) and

hard drives which will be destroyed at the OSDD Northbrook

facility, for a small fee they will take your Hard Drive ($5 each)

and Media ($.35 per pound).Register online at www.lakebar.org or call (847) 244-3143

The Docket26

Mambo Italiano is at 748 S. Butterfield Rd. in Mundelein, in a strip mall just south of Greggs Parkway, on the west side.

My wife, Liz, and I have eaten here several times alone, but also with family and with friends. It is our favorite Italian restaurant.

The service is excellent, with very attentive, but not hovering, waitstaff. Waters get refilled when needed. Bread is brought promptly. Food is served quickly and dishes cleared when empty.

Start with the bread. It’s excellent, but do not fill up on it or you will not have room for what follows.

The salads are fresh, with the dressings good and not overwhelming.

The menu is extensive, but that is only part of the program. The specials are numerous, varied, and deli-cious. In fact, after eating here about a dozen times, I fi-nally ordered from the menu during my last visit, having exhausted the specials, which were uniformly fabulous. The salmon over pasta is terrific. It is difficult to get a restaurant to serve rare salmon. Mambo does it perfectly. The three cheese ravioli, the seafood tortellini, the duck, and the scallops all are worth trying.

As to the menu, I can highly recommend the veal

limone, which is the only regular menu item I have tried. Other people who dined with us recommend the lamb chops (lustily enjoyed by an 8-year-old grandson), the spaghetti and meat balls (lustily enjoyed by a different, 9-year-old grandson) the angel hair pasta (Liz’s favorite), and the lasagna, which was enjoyed by some friends.

You are not limited to the menu and specials. You may ask—and be granted—changes and substitutions. If you do not want the green beans—big mistake!—then take the asparagus with your meal. If you do not want the potatoes with your meat, ask for the polenta. If you want a different sauce, no problem. These requests are cordial-ly handled.

Then, of course, there is the desert. The only one I have tried—and tried repeatedly—is the plate of four profiteroles. Please save room for this. You will not be disappointed.

The portions are generous. Take the extra home with you. We do often.

There is a wine list. I can only comment on the whites. They are reasonably priced and the restaurant offers a good selection. There is also a full bar with a large screen TV. Sit in the main room facing the bar and you can watch the Cubs play while you eat.

Reservations are highly recommended. We prefer to eat earlier, because the noise level increases after around 7 p.m.

I have been told that both the Jefferson Inn and our judges gather and dine here. I have heard no complaints from anyone.

The price is exceedingly reasonable for the value received. I highly recommend Mambo Italiano.

Write a review (up to 350 words) of your favorite or a new restaurant, reviews can be submitted to Jeffrey Berman at

jberman@andersonwanca.com

Mambo ItalianoRating:

RestaurantReview

BY GARY SCHLESINGER

August 2016 27

Child Representative Training

10 CLE Hours$180 per person

College of Lake County, Grayslake Campus

Register online now at www.lakebar.org

September 21 and 22, 20169:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m. (Lunch Included)

2016 Criminal LawConference

8.0 CLE Hours$199 per person

Milwaukee Hilton City Center

Register online now at www.lakebar.org

October 13 and 14, 2016

The Docket28

Golf Winners1st Place TeamMatthew Dudley Jacquelyn MeliusMarisa SchostokDaniel SmartLow Net CallowayHon. Victoria Rossetti Hon. Christen BishopJoy GossmanMary Kay FoyLongest PuttJacquelyn MeliusRay DiMartiniClosest to the HoleHon. Christen BishopDan SmartLongest DriveJoy GossmanBrian Salvi

Straightest DriveRandy GartnerObstacle CourseJohn MurphyMarshmallow DriveBrian Lewis50/50 RaffleStephen Scheller

PRST STNDUS POSTAGEPAID

GURNEE, ILPERMIT NO. 208

300 Grand Avenue, Suite AWaukegan, IL 60085

Tel: 847-244-3143Fax: 847-244-8259

Eagle SponsorsDudley & LakeGibson Lewis Chicago Title Insurance Company

Silver SponsorsThe Felony, Misdemeanor & Traffic JudgesFidelity National TitleFirst American Title CompanySmart Start Of Illinois

Tee SponsorsAttorneys’ Title Guaranty FundChristen L. Bishop, Circuit JudgeHon. Valerie Boettle CeckowskiMarkham Jeep & AssociatesKatz, Goldstein & WarrenMcDonald Hopkins, LLCMorrison & MorrisonRalph Schwab Gartner & Schiever CharteredSchiller DuCanto & Fleck LLPSol Rappaport, Ph.D., Counseling Connections