750 ILCS 5/501.1
Dissolution action stay
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(750 ILCS 5/501.1)
(from Ch. 40, par. 501.1)
Sec. 501.1. Dissolution action stay.
(a) Upon service of a summons and petition or praecipe filed
under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act or upon
the filing of the respondent's appearance in the proceeding, whichever first
occurs, a dissolution action stay shall be in effect against both parties, without bond or further notice, until a
final judgement is entered, the proceeding is dismissed, or until further
order of the court:
(1) restraining both parties from physically abusing, | harassing, intimidating, striking, or interfering with the personal liberty of the other party or the minor children of either party; and |
(2) restraining both parties from concealing a minor | child of either party from the child's other parent. |
The restraint provided in this subsection (a) does not operate to make
unavailable any of the remedies provided in the Illinois Domestic Violence Act
of 1986.
(b) (Blank).
(c) (Blank).
(d) (Blank).
(e) In a proceeding filed under this Act, the summons shall provide
notice of the entry of the automatic dissolution action stay in a form as
required by applicable rules.
(Source: P.A. 99-90, eff. 1-1-16; 99-763, eff. 1-1-17.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1993–2015 · leading case: Messenger v. Edgar
Messenger v. Edgar (1993)
“1 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (the Act) (750 ILCS 5/501.1 (West 1992)) providing for a “dissolution action stay” that takes effect upon service of a summons and petition filed under the Act and restrains the parties to the action from transferring or…”
Schultz v. Schultz (1998)
“The plaintiffs third amended petition alleged in pertinent part that (1) Ernest’s change of beneficiary designation was void as against public policy and violated the automatic stay provision of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Marriage Act) (750 ILCS…”
People v. Avila-Briones (2015)
“1-13-2221 Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/501.1 (West 1992)) violated her rights to substantive and procedural due process.”
First Midwest v. Pogge (1997)
“750 ILCS 5/501.1 (West 1992). The supreme court held that the statute was overbroad and not rational because it restrained the parties from the disposition not only of marital assets but also nonmarital assets to which the other spouse could lay no claim.”
Hall v. Melton (2000)
“1 of the Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/501.1 (West 1996)) applied to the parentage proceedings and authorized the injunction.”
Lamberis v. Barnwell (2002)
“1(e) of the Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/501.1(e) (West 1998)) and mistakenly treated this as a paternity case instead of a custody case.”
Schultz v. Schultz (1998)
“The plaintiff's third amended petition alleged in pertinent part that (1) Ernest's change of beneficiary designation was void as against public policy and violated the automatic stay provision of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Marriage Act) (750 ILCS…”
In Re Marriage of Mathis (2011)
“1(a)(1) of the Dissolution Act (750 ILCS 5/501.1(a)(1) (West 2000)), which provides for a dissolution action stay until a final judgment is entered that restrains the parties from, inter alia, transferring or spending any property without the consent of the other party or a…”
First Midwest v. Pogge (1997)
“750 ILCS 5/501.1 (West 1992). The supreme court held that the statute was overbroad and not rational because it restrained the parties from the disposition not only of marital assets but also nonmarital assets to which the other spouse could lay no claim.”
In re Parentage of Melton (2000)
“1 of the Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/501.1 (West 1996)) applied to the parentage proceedings and authorized the injunction.”
— 750 ILCS 5/501.1(a) — 2 cases
Schultz v. Schultz (1998)
“The plaintiffs third amended petition alleged in pertinent part that (1) Ernest’s change of beneficiary designation was void as against public policy and violated the automatic stay provision of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Marriage Act) (750 ILCS…”
Schultz v. Schultz (1998)
“The plaintiff's third amended petition alleged in pertinent part that (1) Ernest's change of beneficiary designation was void as against public policy and violated the automatic stay provision of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Marriage Act) (750 ILCS…”
— 750 ILCS 5/501.1(a)(1) — 4 cases
Messenger v. Edgar (1993)
“1 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (the Act) (750 ILCS 5/501.1 (West 1992)) providing for a “dissolution action stay” that takes effect upon service of a summons and petition filed under the Act and restrains the parties to the action from transferring or…”
Schultz v. Schultz (1998)
“The plaintiffs third amended petition alleged in pertinent part that (1) Ernest’s change of beneficiary designation was void as against public policy and violated the automatic stay provision of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Marriage Act) (750 ILCS…”
In Re Marriage of Mathis (2011)
“1(a)(1) of the Dissolution Act (750 ILCS 5/501.1(a)(1) (West 2000)), which provides for a dissolution action stay until a final judgment is entered that restrains the parties from, inter alia, transferring or spending any property without the consent of the other party or a…”
Schultz v. Schultz (1998)
“The plaintiff's third amended petition alleged in pertinent part that (1) Ernest's change of beneficiary designation was void as against public policy and violated the automatic stay provision of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Marriage Act) (750 ILCS…”
— 750 ILCS 5/501.1(e) — 1 case
Lamberis v. Barnwell (2002)
“1(e) of the Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/501.1(e) (West 1998)) and mistakenly treated this as a paternity case instead of a custody case.”
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.
|