Slaughter v. Gayles

Overview

In this parentage and child support action, the respondent father attempted—13 years after entry of a parentage judgment—to void all prior orders because the original summons was never served. The Fourth District held he waived any personal jurisdiction objection by personally appearing, approving agreed orders on the merits, and filing his own pleadings for years without objecting, and affirmed the dismissal of his petition and the sanctions order.

Key Facts

In June 2012, DHFS filed a parentage/child support petition on behalf of Marcoya Slaughter against respondent Ian Gayles; the summons was returned unserved (not found in Peoria County).

On July 3, 2012, respondent signed an agreed genetic testing order on the line marked "Approved."

DNA established paternity; on September 19, 2012, respondent "appeared personally," and the court entered by agreement a support order ($0 monthly based on no income) and a judgment of parentage, both signed by respondent.

From 2017 through 2023, respondent appeared (at times with counsel), filed a petition for allocation of parenting time in which he admitted paternity , and filed multiple petitions to modify support.

In May 2025, respondent first sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction based on defective service, also alleging duress and due process violations.

No transcripts (or substitutes) of any pre-2025 hearings were included in the record.

After dismissal, respondent filed repeated, duplicative documents; DHFS obtained sanctions requiring leave of court for future filings.

Procedural History

Circuit Court of Peoria County (No. 12F381, Judge Caryn J. Kamp). The trial court granted DHFS's motion to dismiss respondent's 2025 petition, denied reconsideration, struck respondent's later filings, and granted sanctions. Respondent appealed to the Fourth District.

Holdings

Construing the petition as a section 2-1401 petition, review is de novo where a judgment is challenged as void for lack of personal jurisdiction due to defective service; respondent waived the objection by personally appearing, agreeing to and "approving" orders on the merits, and later filing pleadings and motions without objecting.

The trial court had no duty to admonish a party that participating on the merits waives service objections; under section 2-301 the burden is on the party to file a motion to dismiss or quash before other filings.

Absent transcripts, the reviewing court presumes the trial court's findings had a sufficient factual basis and conformed to law ( Foutch ).

Duress/coercion and sanctions issues were forfeited (raised only in the reply brief); in any event, sanctions were appropriate given repetitive, substanceless filings.

Legal Principles

735 ILCS 5/2-1401; 735 ILCS 5/2-301(a), (a-6) (West 2024). Key authorities: BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Mitchell , 2014 IL 116311; Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of Education , 201 Ill. 2d 95 (2002); Ebulon Financial Group, LLC v. Politanska , 2025 IL App (1st) 240948; In re Marriage of Verdung , 126 Ill. 2d 542 (1989); Greene v. Board of Election Commissioners , 112 Ill. App. 3d 862 (1983); Owens v. Snyder , 349 Ill. App. 3d 35 (2004); In re Marriage of Adler , 271 Ill. App. 3d 469 (1995); In re Estate of Ahern , 359 Ill. App. 3d 805 (2005); Lord v. Hubert , 12 Ill. 2d 83 (1957); GMB Financial Group, Inc. v. Marzano , 385 Ill. App. 3d 978 (2008); King v. Find-A-Way Shipping, LLC , 2020 IL App (1st) 191307; Foutch v. O'Bryant , 99 Ill. 2d 389 (1984); Corral v. Mervis Industries, Inc. , 217 Ill. 2d 144 (2005); In re Estate of Pellico , 394 Ill. App. 3d 1052 (2009); Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7).

Practical Implications

Signing an "approved"/agreed order while personally present is a submission to jurisdiction—counsel should file a 2-301 motion to quash service first , before any other pleading.

Void-judgment attacks under 2-1401 survive only where the party never consented; years of modification petitions destroy the argument.

Pro se status and lack of judicial admonishment are not defenses to waiver.

Preserve the record: without transcripts or a bystander's report, the appellate court presumes the trial court's consent finding was correct.

Repetitive, substanceless filings support sanctions limiting future filings without leave of court.

Distinguishing factor: a litigant who never personally appeared or only sought extensions/2-1301/2-1401 relief retains the objection under section 2-301(a-6).

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23 order and is not precedential except under Rule 23(e)(1); several cited supporting authorities are themselves unpublished orders. The binding holding is the waiver of personal jurisdiction; the comments on the merits of the sanctions and duress claims are alternative reasoning following a forfeiture finding, and the closing praise of the trial judge is dicta.