EDWARDSVILLE - A motorist claims he received no proper notification prior to being convicted and fined in his absence by Madison County Circuit Court.
William Rogers has filed suit against two county officials he claims are liable because at some point they handled money he handed over following his conviction and fine. He filed suit Feb. 28 in the circuit court.
Rogers claims that following two traffic stops last year no warrant was issued and he received no summons or any other notification prior to the handing down of the ex-parte judgment, which he claims is unlawful.
The judgment was later vacated after he paid a fee, but there was no court appearance prior to this happening, the suit states. Rogers is seeking class action certification on behalf of himself and all others similarly affected since March 2015.
The suit names two defendants, circuit court clerk Mark Von Nada and treasurer Chris Slusser. Rogers claims the pair are liable because the $80 vacate fee Rogers paid was handled at some point by them.
Von Nida said he does not know why the suit names him or Slusser as defendants. The clerk said he files what the court tells him to, adding that the treasurer simply banks the money given to him.
Von Nida said ex-parte hearings and judgments are covered by Supreme Court Rule 556. The rule does allow for judgments to be handed down under certain circumstances.
“It is not unusual and the clerks operate pursuant to Supreme Court rules and state statute,” Von Nida said. “People file these things because they feel they have been done wrong.”
On the specific allegations relating to the claimed failure to serve proper notice, Von Nida said it is his job to file what is handed down by the court.
The action has its roots in two traffic stops last year in Wood River. Rogers received tickets for two offences, which are not detailed in the complaint.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff was not arrested or, at any time, presented with a ticket, summons or any other document prior to charges being filed in court.
The complaint does note that a notice to appear may have been issued or posted, but that does not mean a defendant can be penalized in his absence.
Rogers says he did not even receive a notice to appear, but this is irrelevant as he should still have been issued with a warrant or summons.
On Sept. 12, 2019, an ex-parte judgment, one handed down in the absence of a defendant, was entered. He was found guilty on two counts and fined $326, with the complaint later suggesting that amount was for each offence.
Rogers alleges that ex-parte findings entered without a summons or warrant being properly served are standard policy in Madison County, and there is allegedly no proof of service on file. It is assumed service has taken place, Rogers claims.
Rogers claims he only became aware of the conviction and fine on Jan. 30, 2002.
When he questioned the judgment, he claims to have been told that it could be vacated if he paid $40 for each of the offences.
Rogers claims he paid under duress as he feared incarceration and the prospect of paying a total of $652. He never appeared before any court, the complaint states.
The plaintiff claims the entire process was flawed as proper notice is a prerequisite for any hearing. To achieve that notice, legislators did not simply mean sending a letter, the suit states. The plaintiff claims he does not know happened in his case but argues it must be verified.
“No reasonable person could believe the ex-parte convictions of persons who have never been arrested or served with summons is legal,” the suit claims.
The suit asks for class action certification, with the plaintiff's attorneys asking to be allowed to represent at least 1,000 people they claim to be affected.
According to the complaint, the class should include all persons named as defendants in traffic or criminal misdemeanor cases from March 2015 who had an ex-parte finding against them but allegedly were never served notice and paid either a fine or a vacate fee.
The class should include those who were forced to pay under duress and without lawful or proper notice, the suit continues.
The suit argues that tort immunity enjoyed by government employees does not bar actions when it relates to money.
The plaintiff, who is seeking a judgment of more than $50,000, is represented by Thomas G. Maag and Peter J. Maag of the Maag Law Firm in Wood River.
Madison County Circuit Court case number 2020-L-268