ILCS » Chapter 750 · Act 28
Illinois Compiled Statutes

750 ILCS 28/50 (2026)

Penalties

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(750 ILCS 28/50)
    Sec. 50. Penalties.
    (a) Where a payor wilfully fails to withhold or pay over income pursuant to a properly served income withholding notice, or wilfully discharges, disciplines, refuses to hire or otherwise penalizes an obligor as prohibited by Section 40, or otherwise fails to comply with any duties imposed by this Act, the obligee, public office or obligor, as appropriate, may file a complaint with the court against the payor. The Clerk of the Circuit Court shall notify the obligee or public office, as appropriate, and the obligor and payor of the time and place of the hearing on the complaint. The court shall resolve any factual dispute including, but not limited to, a denial that the payor is paying or has paid income to the obligor. Upon a finding in favor of the complaining party, the court:
        (1) shall enter judgment and direct the enforcement
    
thereof for the total amount that the payor wilfully failed to withhold or pay over; and
        (2) may order employment or reinstatement of or
    
restitution to the obligor, or both, where the obligor has been discharged, disciplined, denied employment or otherwise penalized by the payor and may impose a fine upon the payor not to exceed $200.
    (b) Any obligee, public office or obligor who wilfully initiates a false proceeding under this Act or who wilfully fails to comply with the requirements of this Act shall be punished as in cases of contempt of court.
    (c) Any officer or employee of any payor subject to the provisions of this Act who has the control, supervision, or responsibility for withholding and paying over income pursuant to an income withholding notice properly served on the payor and who wilfully fails to withhold or pay over income as required under the income withholding notice shall be personally liable for a penalty equal to the total amount that was not withheld or paid over by the payor. Only where the employer has incurred sums due under this Section and is unable to pay such amounts may personal liability attach to a responsible officer or employee who has willfully failed to withhold and pay over income as required under the income withholding notice. The personal liability imposed by this subsection shall survive the dissolution of a partnership, limited liability company, or corporation. For the purposes of this subsection, "officer or employee of any payor" includes a partner of a partnership, a manager or member of a limited liability corporation, and a member of a registered limited liability partnership.
(Source: P.A. 95-468, eff. 6-1-08.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 2001–2010 · leading case: In Re Marriage of Chen & Ulner, 820 N.E.2d 1136 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Marriage of Chen & Ulner, 820 N.E.2d 1136 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 3× “Constitutionality of Section 35 Auto Mall next argues that section 35 of the Support Act is unconstitutionally vague as applied because the $100-per-day penalty is not included in section 50 (750 ILCS 28/50 (West 2002)), entitled “Penalties.”
Grams v. Autozone, Inc., 745 N.E.2d 687 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “Finally, Autozone contends that the amount of the fine imposed is unjust because Autozone could have been fined a total of just $200 under section 50 of the Act (750 ILCS 28/50 (West 1998)), if it had entirely failed to withhold the child support payments from Thomas' paycheck.”
Giles v. Gen. Motors Corp., 802 N.E.2d 858 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 3× “11, representing the amount it had withheld from the plaintiffs wages after the termination date, plus a $200 fine allowed by section 50 of the Act (750 ILCS 28/50 (West 2000)). On September 18, 2002, the trial court entered an order granting GM’s section 2 — 619 motion,…”
In Re Marriage of Vaughn, 935 N.E.2d 123 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2× “750 ILCS 28/50(a) (West 2006). On a section 2-619 motion, when there is no right to a jury trial in the action, "the court may, in its discretion, decide questions of fact upon the hearing of the motion.”
Giles v. Gen. Motors Corp. Opinion corrected 01/27/04 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 3× “11, representing the amount it had withheld from the plaintiff's wages after the termination date, plus a $200 fine allowed by section 50 of the Act (750 ILCS 28/50 (West 2000)). On September 18, 2002, the trial court entered an order granting GM's section 2-619 motion,…”
In re Marriage of Chen (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 3× “CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTION 35 Auto Mall next argues that section 35 of the Support Act is unconstitutionally vague as applied because the $100-per-day penalty is not included in section 50 (750 ILCS 28/50 (West 2002)), entitled "Penalties.”
Grams v. Autozone, Inc. Dissent text added Mar. 26, 2001 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). “Finally, Autozone contends that the amount of the fine imposed is unjust because Autozone could have been fined a total of just $200 under section 50 of the Act (750 ILCS 28/50 (West 1998)), if it had entirely failed to withhold the child support payments from Thomas’ paycheck.”
In re Marriage of Vaughn (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “750 ILCS 28/50(a) (West 2006). On a section 2-619 motion, when there is no right to a jury trial in the action, “the court may, in its discretion, decide questions of fact upon the hearing of the motion.”
— 750 ILCS 28/50(a) — 2 cases
In Re Marriage of Vaughn, 935 N.E.2d 123 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “750 ILCS 28/50(a) (West 2006). On a section 2-619 motion, when there is no right to a jury trial in the action, "the court may, in its discretion, decide questions of fact upon the hearing of the motion.”
In re Marriage of Vaughn (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “750 ILCS 28/50(a) (West 2006). On a section 2-619 motion, when there is no right to a jury trial in the action, “the court may, in its discretion, decide questions of fact upon the hearing of the motion.”
— 750 ILCS 28/50(a)(1) — 1 case
In re Marriage of Chen (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTION 35 Auto Mall next argues that section 35 of the Support Act is unconstitutionally vague as applied because the $100-per-day penalty is not included in section 50 (750 ILCS 28/50 (West 2002)), entitled "Penalties.”
— 750 ILCS 28/50(a)(l) — 1 case
In Re Marriage of Chen & Ulner, 820 N.E.2d 1136 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “Constitutionality of Section 35 Auto Mall next argues that section 35 of the Support Act is unconstitutionally vague as applied because the $100-per-day penalty is not included in section 50 (750 ILCS 28/50 (West 2002)), entitled “Penalties.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.