One of the most high-profile accusers of singer R. Kelly will get first dibs on claiming more than $1.5 million in royalties from Sony Music after the Illinois Supreme Court agreed notice of her lien takes precedence because of its delivery method.
In April 2019, Cook County Circuit Court Judge James Flannery awarded $4 million to a woman identified as Heather Williams, the result of her lawsuit accusing Kelly of violating the Childhood Sexual Abuse Act. According to a report published by Courthouse News, Williams initially sued in February 2019, making allegations about Kelly going back to 1998, when she was 16. In September 2022 a state appeals panel upheld that default judgment.
In order to collect some of that money, Williams served a citation to discover assets on Sony Music Holdings. She did so via the U.S. Postal Service.
Mary K. O'Brien
| illinoiscourts.gov
Another Kelly creditor, Midwest Commercial Funding, also served a competing citation to Sony, but did so via email two days after Williams sent her written request.
A Cook County judge found Midwest’s lien had priority, based on electronic service. However, the Illinois First District Appellate Court ruled electronic service wasn’t authorized for such a citation. That panel reversed the lower court ruling and remanded the complaint with instruction for an order prioritizing Williams’ lien.
Midwest appealed that outcome to the Illinois Supreme Court, which issued its ruling March 23. Justice Mary K. O’Brien wrote the 6-0 opinion; Justice Elizabeth Rochford took no part in the decision. The court did not explain why Rochford did not participate in this particular case. Neither Rochford nor O'Brien were on the court in November 2022, when the case was considered by the state high court.
Midwest’s judgment, also from 2020, was for almost $3.49 million and stemmed from suing Kelly for breach of a commercial real estate lease. Sony wasn’t a party to either lawsuit, but became relevant because it held $1.54 million in royalties owed to Kelly.
During county court proceedings, neither Midwest nor Williams challenged the propriety of service methods. Sony, likewise, accepted both citations without objection. The county judge said Midwest’s email arrived Aug. 19, 2020, and Williams’ written document came through Aug. 24. The judge ordered Sony to pay Midwest first. Only on a motion to reconsider that ruling did Williams first challenge whether electronic service was proper. The judge denied that motion, finding Williams had waived the right to challenge on that point.
The appeals panel disregarded the issue of forfeiture “and concluded that email service was not a recognized method for service of a citation to discover assets,” O’Brien wrote, and further found Williams’ citation “was complete four days after she mailed it based on Illinois Supreme Court Rule 12.”
The Supreme Court first rejected Midwest’s contention Williams lacked standing to object to service on Sony’s behalf, determining Williams was “asserting her own right to payment of the royalties, not any rights that belong to Sony.” It then addressed the forfeiture argument, explaining the appellate court found both parties fully briefed the issue “and that Midwest was not prejudiced by consideration of the issue.”
Turning to the delivery method, O’Brien explained that although state law and court rules provide for use of email submission in certain circumstances, that’s not the case for the type of citation at issue because of the nature of the recipient.
“Even if Rule 11 were applicable to citation proceedings, it would not apply to Sony because Sony was not a party in this case,” O’Brien wrote. “Sony had not filed an appearance with the court or provided an email address to the court. It was mere happenstance that Midwest knew Sony’s email address from prior contacts between them. The rules concerning service in a citation proceeding specify the methods by which service must occur.”
The Supreme Court said it agreed with Midwest’s position that parties can “agree to both the manner and method of service,” but those agreements can’t supersede court rules or allow one party, such as Midwest, to implicate the rights of another, like Williams, when the date of service establishes priority.
Because Midwest never served a citation through an acceptable method, Williams’ citation was the only authorized filing, effetive the date of Sony’s receipt.
Williams was represented in the case by attorney Jeffrey S. Deutschman, of the firm of Deutschman & Skafish, of Chicago.
Midwest Commercial was represented by attorney Joshua G. Vincent, of the firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson, of Chicago.