From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
In re Marriage of Gulla
Illinois Appellate Court
888 N.E.2d 585 (2008)
Stephen Gulla was ordered to pay Suzanne Gulla (plaintiff) $3,000 per month toward a $123,140.63 child-support arrearage. The trial court deferred the order in 2005 because Stephen was unemployed. In 2006, Stephen became employed by Knobias, Inc. (defendant) in Mississippi, and the trial court in Illinois ordered Stephen to resume the monthly payments. On March 28, 2006, the court served Knobias with a notice to withhold $3,000 per month from Stephen’s pay. The notice also directed Knobias to contact Suzanne’s attorney, Joseph Poell, with any questions and stated that if the amount to be withheld exceeded that allowed under the law of Knobias’s state, Knobias should withhold the maximum amount allowed. The day after Knobias was served with the notice, Stephen’s attorney, Martin Waitzman, told Knobias that he was moving to vacate the order and that Suzanne’s attorney did not intend to contest the motion. A week later, Waitzman advised Knobias that the parties had resolved the issue and that Stephen would be making payments by another method. However, on October 16, 2006, the trial court granted Suzanne leave to file a petition for a rule to show cause against Knobias for failing to comply with the withholding order. Knobias withheld half of Stephen’s income in November and December, totaling $2,805.20. Suzanne filed her petition for a rule to show cause on November 27, 2006, alleging that Knobias’s failure to comply was an intentional, willful, and contumacious violation of the withholding order. The trial court entered judgment against Knobias and assessed a penalty of $100 per day because Knobias had not withheld any income until November 3, 2006. Knobias filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that the original order was void because the amount ordered exceeded Stephen’s net income, and both federal and Mississippi law prohibited withholding more than half of an employee’s net income. Knobias also claimed it had relied on Waitzman’s representation that the order would be vacated. The trial court denied the motion to reconsider, and Knobias appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Johnson, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 602,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 602,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.