|
emilar
|
|
(enthusiast)
|
|
10/19/07 08:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GOOGLEDAD-Estoppel
|
|
if you file for a combined Op and dissolution and further down the way the OC brings up the filing and denial of Op's, but when you bring it up she says estoppel because the issue had been argued by another court and denied...ok I get that.. maybe.. but in il...i don't know about anywhere else.. doesn't that Op stand the pendency of the case as a seperate but combined issue..I know I'm confusing you...under this statute
750 ILCS 5/107
Sec. 107. Order of protection; status. Whenever relief is sought under Part V, Part VI or Part VII of this Act, the court, before granting relief, shall determine whether any order of protection has previously been entered in the instant proceeding or any other proceeding in which any party, or a child of any party, or both, if relevant, has been designated as either a respondent or a protected person.
Can it be estoppel?
|
|
googledad
|
|
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
|
|
10/19/07 10:37 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: GOOGLEDAD-Estoppel
|
|
Estoppal prevents the relitigation of claims already denied . Your grounds for the OP would need to be for acts that have occured after your original request .
|
|
emilar
|
|
(enthusiast)
|
|
10/19/07 11:02 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: GOOGLEDAD-Estoppel
|
|
After the consolidation, there was an injunctive order ordering person to not contact in this case a child by email, regular mail, telephone etc, after that a stay away order was issued allowing person to pick up only medically needed supplies and clothing in the presense of the police. then another OP in which case party stole and hid other persons marital vehicle, After it was finally brought back person hearing was set for dissolution judge to handle. This was never held because lawyer continued it for monetary reasons and never did bring it back for adjudication. Is there Estostoppel there. and do the injuction and stay away order count as a continued protective order.
|
|
googledad
|
|
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
|
|
10/19/07 11:09 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: GOOGLEDAD-Estoppel
|
|
OK , I'm confused . There were incidents in the past where a judge ruled that an RO wasn't appropriate BUT an RO was issued for a specific reason and the merits of that RO weren't litigated ?
|
|
emilar
|
|
(enthusiast)
|
|
10/20/07 02:46 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: GOOGLEDAD-Estoppel
|
|
Op AUG 16 / OP CONSOLIDATED WITH DISSOLUTION SEPT 6 SAME DAY RO WITH INJUNCTION / SEPT 28 RO AGAIN/ JUNE 10 OP REFERRED TO FAMILY JUDGE HANDLING DIVORCE/ JAN 10 LAWYER QUITS AFTER CONTINUEING EVERY HEARING/ TRIAL OC OBJECTS ESTOPPEL/ i DON'T KNOW IF THE JUDGE UNDERSTOOD IT/ BUT i DON'T THINK THAT LAST OP WAS LITIGATED OTHER THAN SENDING IT BACK TO JUDGE WHO HEARS DIVORCE/ SO DOES THE lAST OP SOUND LIKE ESTOPPEL/ sorry caps, I don't where we ever litigated it except to send it back to divorce judge, it's not really important now except it bugs me- why Estoppel
|
|
googledad
|
|
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
|
|
10/20/07 02:12 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: GOOGLEDAD-Estoppel
|
|
Estoppal would only apply if there was a hearing OR a judge made a ruling on the issue . Doesn't sound like that's the case here .
|