Opinion
NO. 5-17-0414
04-04-2019
In re MARRIAGE OF DEBORAH J. PEEL, Petitioner-Appellee, and GARY E. PEEL, Respondent (Deborah A. Pontious, Non-party Appellant).
NOTICE
Decision filed 04/04/19. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same.
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Clair County.
No. 03-D-320
Honorable Julie K. Katz, Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE MOORE delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Welch and Chapman concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: Appeal dismissed for lack of standing of non-party to appeal from order of circuit court due to her failure to meet her burden to show that her legal right has been invaded or her pecuniary interest is directly, and not merely indirectly, affected by the judgment or order.
¶ 2 The non-party appellant, Deborah A. Pontious, appeals the August 14, 2017, order of the circuit court of St. Clair County, which ordered the sum of $2189.73, then held by the circuit clerk in escrow, to be released to the attorney for the petitioner, Deborah J.
Peel, as payment toward a dissolution of marriage judgment owed by the respondent, Gary E. Peel. For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal for a lack of standing.
¶ 3 FACTS
¶ 4 The factual background of this case is stated in detail in this court's prior order, which involved the respondent's appeal from a prior order of the circuit court. In re Marriage of Peel, 2017 IL App (5th) 150449-U (February 7, 2017). In the prior appeal, the respondent contested the circuit court's order requiring the bankruptcy trustee in charge of the respondent's bankruptcy to deposit $2189.73, representing bankruptcy-exempt funds that were otherwise payable to the respondent, with the clerk of the circuit court. In re Marriage of Peel, 2017 IL App (5th) 150449-U, ¶ 24. On remand, the circuit court entered the order on appeal, releasing the funds to the petitioner as partial payment toward a 2003 dissolution judgment the respondent owes the petitioner.
¶ 5 The non-party appellant also has a dissolution judgment against the respondent, dated June 25, 2007, and as such, is essentially a competing judgment creditor to the petitioner. The non-party appellant did not, at any time, seek to intervene in the proceedings in the circuit court. Nevertheless, she appeals the circuit court's order releasing the funds to the petitioner, arguing that, as a competing judgment creditor, she was a necessary and indispensable party to the petitioner's collection efforts, and that her judgment somehow has priority over that of the petitioner.
¶ 6 ANALYSIS
¶ 7 The doctrine of standing ensures that issues are raised only by parties having a real interest in the outcome of the controversy. Powell v. Dean Foods Co., 2012 IL 111714,
¶ 35 (citing Village of Chatham v. County of Sangamon, 216 Ill. 2d 402, 419 (2005)). "Standing is shown by demonstrating some injury to a legally cognizable interest." Id. "The essence of the inquiry concerning standing is whether the litigant, either in an individual capacity or in a representative capacity, is entitled to have the court decide the merits of a dispute or a particular issue." Id. ¶ 36 (citing In re Estate of Wellman, 174 Ill. 2d 335, 345 (1996)). "Thus, as a general rule, a party cannot complain of an error that does not prejudicially affect that party." Id. (citing Geer v. Kadera, 173 Ill. 2d 398, 413 (1996)).
¶ 8 In order for a non-party to obtain review of a judgment or order, she must show that her interest in the subject matter thereof has been prejudiced or aggrieved by the judgment or order. Shannon v. Stookey, 59 Ill. App. 3d 573, 577-78 (1978). In order to meet this burden, the non-party appellant must show that her legal right has been invaded or a pecuniary interest is directly, and not merely indirectly, affected by the judgment or order. Id. at 578. In her brief, the non-party appellant makes no such showing. She simply argues that the money at issue belongs to her by virtue of the respondent's promise, in their subsequent marital settlement agreement, to pay her from the bankruptcy estate. She cites no authority for the proposition that an order awarding funds to the petitioner by virtue of the petitioner's judgment against the respondent results in a direct, rather than merely indirect, effect on her pecuniary interest. Nor does she show an invasion of her legal right, where there is no allegation that she had no notice of the proceedings brought by the petitioner to collect on her judgment, she never sought intervention in the proceedings, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that she instituted any efforts in
her own divorce proceeding to claim an interest in the funds that were distributed to the petitioner. Accordingly, we find that the non-party appellant has failed to meet her burden that she has standing to proceed with an appeal of the circuit court's order.
¶ 9 CONCLUSION
¶ 10 For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed for a lack of standing.
¶ 11 Appeal dismissed.