Plaintiffs sued their son (Dale) and his wife (Tammy). They alleged that they owed them money relating to son’s farming operation.
Throughout the proceedings in this case, Dale and Tammy Lisk were involved in a pending divorce case in Schuyler County.
Plaintiffs filed four amended complaints. Each complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted.
Other Motions to Dismiss were filed by both or one of the Defendants.
The trial court then (1) dismissed the fourth amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action against Tammy. (2) granted the supplemental motion to dismiss. On the basis that the issues surrounding any debt were currently being litigated in the divorce action. (3) Ordered a stay in the proceedings until the divorce action concluded.
Plaintiffs appealed. They argued that the trial court erred by staying the proceedings in this case until the divorce case is resolved. The Appellate Court We disagreed with Plaintiffs and affirmed the trial court.
The Trial Court was in pursuit of comity. In attempting to avoid inconsistent results with the divorce case. And both proceedings involved the same property.
Several actions were pending that involved substantially the same subject matter. A court may stay the proceedings in one matter to see whether the disposition of one action may settle the other.
Here, the trial court was attempting to avoid inconsistent results with the divorce case. Both
proceedings involved the same property. Based on the similarity of the issues, the trial court
did not abuse its discretion by trying to avoid inconsistent results.
A determination in the divorce case regarding defendants’ marital property and nonmarital property would help settle the matter at hand. A stay in this case is proper until the determination of property can be made in the divorce case.
Lisk v. Lisk, 2020 IL App (4th) 190364 (January 6, 2020) Schuyler Co.