Blewitt v. Urban
| Decision Date | 18 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 3-22-0087 |
| Citation | 2023 IL App (3d) 220087 U |
| Parties | JOSEPH L. BLEWITT and ELLEN P. BLEWITT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LEONARD URBAN; CECILIA URBAN; MITCHELL &ALLEN, individually and as agent and independent contractor of Leonard Urban and Cecilia Urban, and as co-counsel of Bruggeman, Hurst &Associates; JACK HERTZ, individually and as partner of the law office of Mitchell &Allen; ALAN R. BRUGGEMAN, individually and as partner of the law office of Bruggeman, Hurst & Associates; DAVID C. HURST, individually and as partner of the law office of Bruggeman, Hurst &Associates; BRUGGEMAN, HURST & ASSOCIATES, individually and as agent and independent contractor of Leonard Urban and Cecilia Urban and as co-counsel of Mitchell &Allen, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Will County, Illinois, Circuit No. 15-CH-1884 Honorable Theodore J. Jarz, Judge, Presiding.
ALBRECHT JUSTICE.
¶ 1 Held: The circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint as a means for reinstatement 18 months after the appellate court issued its mandate remanding the case to the circuit court.
¶ 2 Plaintiffs, Joseph L. Blewitt and Ellen P. Blewitt, appeal the circuit court's order upholding its dismissal of their fourth amended complaint and its refusal to reinstate this cause pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 369(c). Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 369(c) (eff. July 1, 1982). The Blewitts' fourth amended complaint was filed 18 months after our mandate issued. That mandate affirmed, in part, the circuit court's grant of summary judgment on Joseph's quiet title petition in his favor. We remanded the remaining cause with specific direction to conduct a hearing on Joseph's motions for Rule 137(a) sanctions. Ill. S.Ct. R 137(a) (eff. Jan 1, 2018); see Blewitt v. Urban (BlewittI), 2020 IL App (3d) 180722, ¶¶ 47, 51, 54-56. We cannot say that the circuit court abused its discretion when finding Joseph's 18-month delay in reinstatement unreasonable and we therefore affirm.
¶ 4 Because we previously spelled out a clear chronology of the parties' prolonged litigation in our prior opinion, see Blewitt I, we recite the procedural history only to the extent necessary to resolve this appeal.
¶ 5 In 1996, Joseph represented defendants Leonard and Cecilia Urban in a personal injury lawsuit filed in Cook County Illinois. After the lawsuit was dismissed for want of prosecution, and refiled by Joseph, the Urbans discharged him as their attorney and retained the law office of Mitchell &Allen to pursue their personal injury claim.
¶ 6 The Urbans, with the law office of Mitchell &Allen as their counsel, filed suit in Cook County against Joseph for his rendered legal services. On August 6, 2003, the Cook County circuit court entered default judgment against Joseph in favor of Leonard, but not Cecilia, in the amount of $238,007.61.
¶ 7 The Urbans recorded two memoranda of judgment seeking to place a lien against Joseph's Will County real estate. Both memoranda failed to adhere to the strict compliance requirement necessary to create a valid judgment lien pursuant to section 12-101 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/12-101 (West 2016)). The first memorandum, recorded on September 16, 2004, in the office of the Will County Recorder of Deeds, erroneously provided that the Cook County default judgment was entered in favor of Leonard and Cecilia. The First District Appellate Court clarified that the August 6, 2003, default was entered in favor of Leonard, but not Cecilia, while affirming the circuit court's denial of Joseph's motion to vacate the default judgment in Urban v. Blewitt, 356 Ill.App.3d 1133 (2005) (table) (unpublished order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23).
¶ 8 The Urbans recorded a second memorandum of judgment in Will County on February 28, 2006. This memorandum correctly identified that the default judgment order was entered in favor of Leonard only; however, the Urbans incorrectly listed the amount awarded.
¶ 9 On September 3, 2015, Joseph filed a petition to quiet title in the Will County proceeding. Joseph amended his petition three times before filing a motion for summary judgment on October 26, 2017, asserting the Urbans' memoranda of judgment against his property failed to strictly comply with the requirements of section 12-101. 735 ILCS 5/12-101 (West 2016). The circuit court granted Joseph's motion for summary judgment in a written order on January 26, 2018, and denied the Urbans' motion to reconsider on April 17, 2018.
¶ 10 Thereafter, Joseph filed a motion for sanctions against the Urbans and their attorney pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 based on what he characterized as the defendants' untrue statements and dilatory, harassing, and fraudulent behavior in the Will County matter. Ill. S.Ct. R. 137 (eff. Jan. 1, 2018). Prior to the hearing, the circuit court sua sponte denied Joseph's motion for sanctions twice. The court also denied Joseph's motion to reconsider, finding that "no sanctionable conduct occurred."
¶ 11 Both parties timely appealed. Joseph appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in its sua sponte denials of his Rule 137 motion for sanctions and the denial of his motion to reconsider. The Urbans cross-appealed, arguing that the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in Joseph's favor and the denial of their motion to reconsider was in error.
¶ 13 On February 13, 2020, this court ruled that the Urbans' memoranda of judgment were defective because neither satisfied the strict compliance standard required under section 12-101.[1]Blewitt 1, 2020 IL App (3d) 180722, ¶¶ 44-45; 735 ILCS 5/12-101 (West 2016). Based on these deficiencies, this court upheld Joseph's grant of summary judgment on his petition to quiet title. Blewitt 1, 2020 IL App (3d) 180722, ¶ 47. Separately, it found that the record on appeal was insufficient to determine whether the circuit court's sua sponte denials of Joseph's motion for sanctions were appropriate and remanded so the parties could participate in the originally scheduled sanction hearing. Id. ¶ 51. Pursuant to its authority under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 366(a)(5) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994), the court ordered this matter to be assigned to a new judge on remand based on the acrimonious tone of the parties and to further the interests of judicial economy. Id. ¶ 52. The appellate mandate issued on March 23, 2020, with the directions on remand consistent with this court's opinion.
¶ 15 After 18 months of inactivity, Joseph moved for leave to file a fourth amended complaint on September 22, 2021. This new pleading sought to add his spouse Ellen as a plaintiff in a slander of title action against the Urbans, with newly named defendants Alan R. Bruggeman; David C. Hurst; the law office of Bruggeman, Hurst &Associates; Jack Hertz; and the law office of Mitchell &Allen.
¶ 16 On September 27, 2021, the circuit court struck Joseph's motion after he failed to appear but entered an order transferring the matter to the presiding judge for reassignment pursuant to the appellate mandate. After Joseph re-noticed his motion, the newly appointed circuit court judge granted him leave, and he filed his fourth amended complaint on October 25, 2021. On November 4, 2021, the Urbans, Bruggeman, Hurst, and the law office of Bruggeman, Hurst &Associates moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2020), arguing in part that Joseph failed to file a motion to reinstate the matter, that the delay in reinstatement was unreasonable, and that the fourth amended complaint exceeded the scope of the appellate mandate.
¶ 17 The court entered a briefing schedule on defendants' motion on November 12, 2021, and the remaining defendants joined in the motion to dismiss on November 16, 2021. During the December 17, 2021, hearing, the circuit court recognized that it prematurely granted Joseph leave to file his fourth amended complaint before it properly evaluated whether the appellate mandate vested the court with jurisdiction and whether Joseph satisfied the "first hurdle" of timely seeking reinstatement, clarifying:
"[I]n terms of the earlier order that I entered granting leave to file the fourth amended complaint, I believe that was an error on my part and the complaint should not have been filed as part of this proceeding, and the matter should proceed with the issues concerning the sanctions that we were to address in accordance with the remand from the Third District."
¶ 18 After the hearing, the court entered an order vacating its October 25, 2021, order and dismissed the Blewitts' fourth amended complaint. The court afforded Joseph the opportunity to explain his prolonged delay in reinstating this cause in a supplemental pleading.
¶ 19 Joseph filed a supplemental response with an accompanying affidavit on December 29, 2021, that offered justifications for his delay. First, Joseph asserted that the motion for leave to file was equivalent to and a proper substitute for a motion to reinstate as required by Rule 369(c). Ill. Sup. Ct R. 369 (eff. July 1, 1982). Joseph raised several reasons in his supplemental pleading that he argued contributed to the delay in reinstatement, including six factors which the circuit court later characterized as (1) the COVID-19 pandemic interfered with court access, (2) a mistaken belief concerning...
To continue reading
Request your trial