Schultz v. Performance Lighting, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Schultz sought to recover a $100 per day statutory penalty from Performance Lighting under the Income Withholding for Support Act, 750 ILCS 28/35, claiming failure to withhold sums for child support that allegedly should have been withheld from her ex-husband’s paychecks. A2009 dissolution ordered the ex-husband to pay $600 every two weeks; he worked for Performance until May, 2010. The trial court dismissed with prejudice, finding that the notice of withholding was not in strict compliance with the Act. The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. The notices provided to the employer did not provide the father’s social security number, as required by the Act and were, therefore, not “regular on their face.” The requirements of the statute are mandatory. Although there are recent legislative amendments, effective August, 2012, they have no impact here.
Court Description:
This Lake County litigation arises from an ex-wife’s failure to receive child support. The defendant is the ex-husband’s employer, a company for which he worked until May of 2010. In 2009 dissolution proceedings, he was ordered to pay $600 every two weeks.
The ex-wife sought to obtain these support payments by means of the Income Withholding and Support Act. In November of 2011, she filed the instant complaint, alleging her failure to receive payments, defendant employer’s duty to withhold, and defendant’s obligation to pay a $100 per day statutory penalty for that failure to withhold. However, the notices provided to the employer had not provided the father’s social security number, as required by statute. The notices were, thus, not “regular on their face.” The circuit court dismissed the action with prejudice for lack of statutory compliance, and the appellate court affirmed.
In this decision, the Illinois Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that the requirements of the statute are mandatory. Although there are recent legislative amendments in this area that were effective in August of 2012, they have no impact here.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.