In re Marriage of Hundley, 2019 IL App (4th) 180380

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Hundley, 2019 IL App (4th) 180380 (Apr. 2, 2019).
- Petitioner/third‑party plaintiff: Sally Kay Hundley; Respondent: John J. Hundley; Third‑party defendant/appellee: Buckhart Sand & Gravel Co., Inc.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a payor (employer) served with an income withholding notice may challenge the validity of the underlying support order or the form/content of the notice.
- Whether penalties under section 35(a) of the Income Withholding for Support Act (750 ILCS 28/35 (West 2014)) apply only to “knowing” violations and, if so, when a payor’s failure becomes “knowing.”
- Proper calculation and imposition of statutory daily penalties for failure to remit withheld amounts to the State Disbursement Unit (SDU).

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court. It held the trial court correctly interpreted the Act and its factual findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court upheld a reduced statutory penalty ($53,400) assessed against Buckhart for failing to remit withheld amounts; the knowing violation was held to begin after Buckhart received a nonreceipt notice under §45(j).

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The court reiterated that the Act imposes mandatory duties on payors; a payor cannot collaterally challenge the underlying support order once served with a valid withholding notice. Schultz (2013 IL 115738) was distinguished: Schultz addressed facial defects in a notice, while here the issue was the payor’s ability to contest the underlying order. The Act does not require attaching the support order to the notice.
- The court agreed with the trial court’s statutory interpretation that §35(a) imposes penalties for “knowing” violations. The evidence (stipulation that Buckhart withheld amounts but did not remit until May 2016, and receipt of a §45(j) nonreceipt notice in Feb. 2016) supported the trial court’s finding that the initial nonremittance was an innocent mistake, but became “knowing” when Buckhart failed to correct after notice, thereby triggering penalties.

5. Practice implications
- Employers/payors: treat withholding notices as mandatory; remit withheld funds promptly to the SDU and establish procedures to investigate and correct remittance errors immediately upon nonreceipt notices to avoid “knowing” liability and daily penalties.
- Obligors/obligees and counsel: timely serve withholding and nonreceipt notices (§20, §45(j)) to convert innocent errors into knowing violations if employers do not cure, and pursue statutory penalties.
- Drafting/defensive strategy: although certain formalities are required in notices, employers generally lack standing to attack the underlying support order once properly served — defenses should focus on timeliness, facts showing lack of knowledge, proof of remittance, or corrective acts taken promptly.