In re Marriage of Basil, 2021 IL App (1st) 200258-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Basil, 2021 IL App (1st) 200258‑U (1st Dist. June 17, 2021).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Ortal Basil. Respondent‑Appellant: Roie Basil.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court had personal jurisdiction over respondent where the same summons/form had been used in proceedings involving an emergency order of protection (arguing section 210(a) of the Domestic Violence Act required a separate summons).
- Whether service was “stale” (special process server received the summons 21 days after original issue) and thus ineffective.
- Whether the special process server’s affidavit/testimony was credible (and whether he was a disinterested server given a family connection).
- Whether counsel’s questioning of respondent about his knowledge of the pending dissolution at the motion‑to‑quash hearing was improper.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of respondent’s motion to quash service. The trial court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction was proper.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard of review: factual findings on service/credibility are reviewed for manifest weight; jurisdictional questions are reviewed de novo.
- Form of summons: the court relied on Supreme Court Rule 101, particularly that use of the wrong form of summons does not affect the court’s jurisdiction (Rule 101(g)). Thus, even if a summons had been issued in the course of the emergency order of protection, that did not automatically void service of the dissolution petition. Section 210(a) (Domestic Violence Act) does not oust Rule 101’s effect that form errors are non‑jurisdictional.
- Timeliness/staleness: the court accepted the trial court’s factual finding that the special process server personally served respondent (Feb. 18) after being appointed and that the alias summons and proper service procedure had been followed; the brief delay between original issue and later special‑process placement did not deprive the court of jurisdiction.
- Credibility/disinterestedness: the trial court’s resolution of credibility issues (including the server’s relationship to petitioner’s family) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; the server’s affidavit and mailed copy supported actual service.
- Counsel’s questioning about respondent’s knowledge was relevant to notice; its admission was not error.

5. Practice implications (for family law practitioners)
- Form mistakes (including overlapping filings like orders of protection) may not be dispositive—Sup. Ct. Rule 101(g) can salvage jurisdiction—so correct but don’t assume automatic voidness.
- Preserve and develop the factual record on service: sworn process‑server affidavits, dates/times, certified‑mail proof, and contemporaneous attempts by sheriff are critical.
- Challenges to service that rest on server relationship or credibility are factual; expect courts to defer to trial credibility findings unless manifestly against the evidence.
- If seeking to quash, move promptly and include specific defects (missing date elements, inconsistent affidavits). Conversely, when serving, ensure clear affidavits (complete dates/times) and proof of mailing to reduce successful collateral attacks.