# Teich v. Teich

> Appellate Court of Illinois · April 8, 1971 · 132 Ill. App. 2d 348

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9732143

## Case

- **Full name:** Joan Martha Teich, Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant, Appellant, v. Ralph D. Teich, Defendant, Cross-Plaintiff, Appellee
- **Court:** Appellate Court of Illinois
- **Decided:** April 8, 1971
- **Citations:** 132 Ill. App. 2d 348; 270 N.E.2d 525; 1971 Ill. App. LEXIS 1484
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Craven
- **Judges:** Trapp, Craven
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9732143

## Opinion text

Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Upon the authority of In re Estate of Day (1956), 7 Ill.2d 348 , 131 N.E.2d 50 , the Nevada decree is immune from collateral attack by either party on jurisdictional grounds. Thus, I agree with the majority that the decree is subject to registration in Illinois and is determinative of the marital status.
It does not follow, however, that the property-settlement agreement is likewise immune from further judicial inquiry. An Illinois decree incorporating a property-settlement agreement alleged to be fraudulent, collusive and inequitable would be subject to a section 72 proceeding. See: Roth v. Roth (1970), 45 Ill.2d 19 , 256 N.E.2d 838 ; Van Dam v. Van Dam (1961), 21 Ill.2d 212 , 171 N.E.2d 594 ; Wilson v. Wilson (2nd Dist. 1965), 56 Ill.App.2d 187 , 205 N.E.2d 636 . See also Schwarz v. Schwarz (1963), 27 Ill.2d 140 , 188 N.E.2d 673 .
Thus, I dissent from that portion of the opinion that affirms the dismissal of the complaint in so far as it concerns the property-settlement agreement.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9732143. Public record. Not legal advice.