In re Marriage of McHale, 2019 IL App (1st) 190337-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of McHale, No. 1-19-0337, 2019 IL App (1st) 190337-U (Ill. App. Ct. 6th Div. Sept. 27, 2019) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner-Appellee: Tracy M. McHale. Respondents-Appellants: Shawn T. McHale, deceased, by his administrator, and Palos Fire Protection Fund Board of Trustees (the Board).

- Key legal issues
1) Whether petitioner’s post‑dissolution 2‑1401 motion to vacate (seeking entitlement to deceased spouse’s fire pension) was time‑barred under 40 ILCS 5/4‑114(g) because the Board was not made a party within two years of the dissolution judgment;
2) Whether petitioner lacked standing because she did not administratively appeal the Board’s December 7, 2015 order and benefits/refunds were paid to the estate/minors;
3) Whether the trial court abused discretion in vacating the dissolution judgment; and related conflict‑of‑interest concerns.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s grant of petitioner’s motion to vacate the dissolution judgment. The court held petitioner met the timing requirements of 4‑114(g), administrative review was not required for her 2‑1401 motion, and she had standing. No reversible abuse of discretion or disqualifying conflict was found.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
• Statutory interpretation: 4‑114(g) requires (a) judicial proceedings to be filed within two years after dissolution and within one year after the firefighter’s death, and (b) that the Board be made a party. The court read the text literally and concluded the statutory time limits govern filing the judicial proceedings, not separately the timing of joining the Board.
• Joinder: joinder of the Board remains governed by civil procedure (735 ILCS 5/2‑616), which permits adding necessary parties before final judgment on just terms. Petitioner filed her motion and added the Board within the statutory windows for filing.
• Administrative review: petitioner’s motion sought to vacate a court dissolution judgment (2‑1401), not to attack the Board’s administrative payment decision; administrative review procedures therefore did not bar the relief sought.
• Standing/waiver: petitioner had not applied for pension benefits and the Board’s payments to estate/minors did not preclude her 2‑1401 claim; factual disputes about receipt of checks did not defeat standing.

- Practice implications for family attorneys
• When a former spouse dies after dissolution, promptly file a 2‑1401 motion to vacate if you intend to claim pension rights; 40 ILCS 5/4‑114(g) imposes two timing windows (2 years from dissolution; 1 year from death).
• Add pension boards as parties under §2‑616 before final judgment—joinder timing is procedural, not separately time‑barred by 4‑114(g).
• Distinguish civil relief (vacatur of judgment) from administrative review—use administrative appeals only to contest specific board orders.
• Preserve evidence about benefit checks (receipt, acceptance) to avoid waiver or estoppel arguments.
• Consider appointing guardians ad litem for minors and anticipate executor/conflict claims when estates and pension interests overlap.
• Note: this is an unpublished Rule 23 order—citation limits may apply.