mathematical error in Illinois

2021For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the court’s judgment but modify the amount of the judgment to correct a mathematical error. ¶2 BACKGROUND ¶3 The underlying loan that gave rise to the supplementary proceedings at issue here has been the subject of extensive litigation, resulting in a number of appeals before this court, most recently in McGinley Partners, LLC v. Royalty Properties, LLC, 2020 IL App (1st) 190546 .

2021For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the court’s judgment but modify the amount of the judgment to correct a mathematical error. ¶2 BACKGROUND ¶3 The underlying loan that gave rise to the supplementary proceedings at issue here has been the subject of extensive litigation, resulting in a number of appeals before this court, most recently in McGinley Partners, LLC v. Royalty Properties, LLC, 2020 IL App (1st) 190546 .

2025ANALYSIS ¶ 35 On appeal, Abts argues that the judgment was erroneous because (1) she is not personally liable for the debt of a dissolved corporation, (2) CIMS already sued Cremation Society for the same alleged debt, (3) CIMS did not allege in its complaint that Abts was responsible for Cremation Society’s past debt or that any arrearage existed, and (4) the trial court miscalculated the judgment by making a mathematical error and failing to give Abts the benefit of a discounted rate for all invoices issued after October 2, 2017. ¶ 36 CIMS responds that Abts’s arguments about assumption of co

2021The court explained that, instead of a mathematical standard, “the combination of a ‘likely’ standard with evidence of mental illness complied with due process because the statutory requirements served to ‘limit involuntary civil confinement to those who suffer from a volitional impairment rendering them dangerous beyond their control.’ ” Id. at 187- 88 (quoting Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 358 ). ¶ 80 Moreover, the Hayes court reasoned that even if they assumed the Hendricks decision established a minimum threshold of danger to justify commitment, the SVP Act’s definition of sexually violent person

2012The court held that “a mathematical error in determining a spouse’s income is not a clerical error; rather, as it is the product of the judicial function, it is a judicial error.” Takata, 304 Ill.

2012Therefore, as presented by the parties, the issue presented on appeal is whether the Department had the authority to summarily correct Ameritech’s purported use of the wrong apportionment factor formula because it constituted a mathematical error under section 1501(a)(12)(A) of the Income Tax Act. 35 ILCS 5/1501(a)(12)(A) (West 2000). ¶ 48 Second, it appears that the Department’s authority to correct mathematical errors under the Income Tax Act has been previously discussed in only two cases: Walsh, 196 Ill.

2012However, both Walsh and Holding Co. do include some general discussion of the mathematical error correction provision of the Income Tax Act that is useful to our resolution of this appeal. ¶ 49 Thus, in Walsh, 196 Ill.

2012App. 3d 772 , and The Holding Co. v. Department of Revenue, 214 Ill.

1986Although a mathematical standard to determine the unreasonableness of a defect cannot be established (Warner v. City of Chicago (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 100, 104 , 378 N.E.2d 502 ; Arvidson v. City of Elmhurst (1957), 11 Ill. 2d 601, 604 , 145 N.E.2d 105 ), it has been held that a variance of 2 inches may be actionable under certain circumstances while one of V-k inches may not be (Warner v. City of Chicago (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 100, 104-05 , 378 N.E.2d 502 ).

1986Although a mathematical standard to determine the unreasonableness of a defect cannot be established (Warner v. City of Chicago (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 100, 104 , 378 N.E.2d 502 ; Arvidson v. City of Elmhurst (1957), 11 Ill. 2d 601, 604 , 145 N.E.2d 105 ), it has been held that a variance of 2 inches may be actionable under certain circumstances while one of V-k inches may not be (Warner v. City of Chicago (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 100, 104-05 , 378 N.E.2d 502 ).

1986See also Arvidson v. City of Elmhurst (1957), 11 Ill. 2d 601, 609 , 145 N.E.2d 105 (2-inch deep defect actionable); Repinski v. Jubilee Oil Co. (1980), 85 Ill.