CLP Venture v. Cent. States

• Docket Number: 1-23-0574
• Decision Date: 22 November 2023
• Citation: CLP Venture v. Cent. States, 242 N.E.3d 471 (Ill. App. 2023)
• Parties: CLP VENTURE, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND, and Charles A. Whobrey, as Trustee, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois

242 N.E.3d 471

2023 IL App (1st) 230574

CLP VENTURE, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND, and Charles A. Whobrey, as Trustee, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 1-23-0574

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, FIFTH DIVISION.

Filed November 22, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 2022 CH 00933, Honorable Allen P. Walker, Judge Presiding.

Brandon A. Buyers, of Chicago, for appellants.

David E. Cohen, of SWK Attorneys at Law, of Northbrook, for appellee.

OPINION

JUSTICE MIKVA delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 In 2013, Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund and a predecessor trustee of Charles A. Whobrey (collectively, Central States) obtained two judgments for money damages against CLP Venture, L.L.C. (CLP). Over seven years after the first of these judgments was obtained, Central States revived both judgments and then sought to record these revived judgments as a new lien on CLP’s property at 7701 West 79th Street, Bridgeview, Illinois (the Bridgeview property).

¶ 2 CLP brought an action to quiet title. It argued that, by waiting longer than seven years, Central States did not comply with the procedure for reviving judgment liens as described in section 12-101 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/12-101 (West 2018)), and the lien should therefore be removed. Agreeing, the circuit court granted summary judgment to CLP and voided Central States’s lien.

¶ 3 For the reasons that follow, we find that section 12-101 allows a judgment creditor, such as Central States, to record a revived judgment as a new lien on a debtor’s property after the expiration of seven years. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 On August 29, 2013, Central States obtained a judgment for $2,616,794.30, pursuant to civil enforcement provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2) (2018)) in the Northern District of Illinois against CLP and eight codefendants (collectively, the ERISA defendants). On November 15, 2013, Central States recorded that judgment with the Cook County Recorder of Deeds as a lien on the Bridgeview property.

¶ 6 On November 19, 2013, Central States obtained a second judgment against the ERISA defendants for $79,923.48 for attorney fees and court costs. As to both judgments, the Northern District found the defendants jointly and severally liable, allowing Central States to collect against any or all of the defendants.

¶ 7 On September 23, 2020, which was over seven years after the federal district court issued the first judgment, it revived both the August 29, 2013, and November 19, 2013, judgments as a single judgment. Accounting for interest and monies collected, the district court calculated the first judgment had a remaining balance of $2,350,881.67 and the second had a remaining balance of $71,401.13.

¶ 8 On November 27, 2020, Central States recorded the federal court’s September 23, 2020, revived judgment with the Cook County Recorder of Deeds as a lien on CLP’s Bridgeview property.

¶ 9 CLP filed this case as a "Motion for Quiet Title," asserting that Central States did not comply with the provisions for reviving a judgment lien in section 12-101 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/12-101 (West 2018)) and that the lien on the Bridgeview property was therefore invalid. The circuit court granted CLP’s motion for summary judgment, voiding the judgment lien in its entirety. This appeal followed.

¶ 10 II. JURISDICTION

¶ 11 On February 28, 2023, the circuit court granted summary judgment and resolved all remaining claims brought by CLP. Central States filed a timely notice of appeal on March 29, 2023. This court has jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994) and Rule 303 (eff. July 1, 2017), governing appeals from final judgments entered by the circuit court in civil cases.

¶ 12 III. ANALYSIS

¶ 13 The only issue before us is whether section 12-101 of the Code allowed Central States to revive its judgments and file a new lien on that combined judgment where more than seven years had elapsed since the judgments were originally entered. See 735 ILCS 5/12-101 (West 2018). We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Cohen v. Chicago Park District, 2017 IL 121800, ¶ 17, 422 Ill.Dec. 869, 104 N.E.3d 436.

[1] ¶ 14 When construing a statute, our goal is to effectuate the intent of the legislature. Manago v. County of Cook, 2017 IL 121078, ¶ 10, 419 Ill.Dec. 1, 92 N.E.3d 412. "[T]he plain and unambiguous language enacted provid[es] the most reliable indicator of that intent." Id. A court must "view all provisions of a statutory enactment as a whole, construing words and phrases not in isolation, but in light of other relevant provisions." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Stem v. Wheaton-Warrenville Community Unit School District 200, 233 Ill. 2d 396, 410, 331 Ill.Dec. 12, 910 N.E.2d 85 (2009).

¶ 15 Several sections of the Code are relevant to the parties’ dispute. Sections 12-108, 2-1601, and 2-1602 of the Code all govern the enforcement and revival of judgments. 735 ILCS 5/12-108(a), 2-1601, 24602(a) (West 2018).

[2] ¶ 16 Under section 12-108, a judgment becomes dormant after seven years. Id. § 12408(a). Section 2-1601 abolishes the common law action to revive judgments and replaces it with the provisions of section 2-1602. Id. § 2-1601. Section 2-1602(a) allows a judgment to be revived any time within 20 years of its entry. Id. § 24602(a). Under these three provisions, an initial judgment may be enforced for 7 years, after which it becomes dormant and may not be enforced unless that judgment is revived, and a judgment may be revived at any point up to 20 years.

¶ 17 The parties’ dispute centers on one part of section 12-101 governing the revival of judgment liens. See id. § 12-101. There are two paragraphs that are relevant here that are buried within the lengthy text of section 12-101. What we will refer to as paragraph one states as follows:

"A judgment is not a lien on real estate for longer than 7 years from the time it is entered or revived, unless the judgment is revived within 7 years after its entry or last revival and a new memorandum of judgment is recorded prior to the judgment and its recorded memorandum of judgment becoming dormant." Id.

Immediately following, what we will refer to as paragraph two, continues:

"When a judgment is revived it is a lien on the real estate of the person against whom it was entered in any county in this State from the time a transcript, certified copy or memorandum of the order of revival is filed in the office of the recorder in the county in which the real estate is located." Id.

¶ 18 The parties’ dispute focuses specifically on amendments that were made to paragraph One in 2002 and 2012. See Pub. Act 92-817 (eff. Aug. 21, 2002) (amending 735 ILCS 5/12-101); Pub. Act 97-350 (eff. Jan. 1, 2012) (amending 735 ILCS 5/12-101). These amendments, with the changes italicized, are as follows:

Section 12-101 Prior to Public Act 92-817	Public Act 92-817 Effective: August 21, 2002	Public Act 97-350 Effective: January 1, 2012
"A judgment is not a lien on real estate for longer than 7 years from the time it is entered or revived.When a judgment is revived it is a lien on the real estate of the person against whom it was entered in any county in this State from the time a transcript, certified copy or memorandum of the order of revival is filed in the office of the recorder in the county in which the real estate is located." 735 ILCS 5/12-101 (West 2000).	"A judgment is not a lien on real estate for longer than 7 years from the time it is entered or revived, unless the Judgment is revived within 7 years after its entry or last revival and a memorandum of Judgment is filed before the expiration of the prior memorandum of Judgment.When a judgment is revived it is a lien on the real estate of the person against whom it was entered in any county in this State from the time a transcript, certified copy or memorandum of the order of revival is filed in the office of the recorder in the county in which the real estate is located." Pub. Act 92-817 (eff. Aug. 21, 2002) (amending 735 ILCS 5/12-101).	"A judgment is not a lien on real estate for longer than 7 years from the time it is entered or revived, unless the judgment is revived within 7 years after its entry or last revival and a new memorandum of judgment is recorded prior to the Judgment and its recorded memorandum of judgment becoming dormant.When a judgment is revived it is a lien on the real estate of the person against whom it was entered in any county in this State from the time a transcript, certified copy or memorandum of the order of revival is filed in the office of the recorder in the county in which the real estate is located." Pub. Act 97-350 (eff. Jan. 1,2012) (amending 735 ILCS 5/12-101).

¶ 19 CLP argues that paragraph one was amended to require the judgment creditor—here Central States—to revive a judgment and record the lien within seven years of the original judgment. According to CLP, the failure to do so forfeits the right to file a new lien on the property on which the original lien was initially filed. Recognizing that paragraph two contemplates that a revived judgment can give rise to a lien, CLP’s position is that that paragraph applies only if other property can be found to support a lien on the revived judgment.

[3] ¶ 20 Central States’s position is that the statute allows the judgment creditor to file a lien based on a revived judgment at any time during the 20 years that the judgment can be revived. The amendments only provide a mechanism by which a judgment creditor can maintain the priority of the original lien. We agree with Central States’s interpretation.

¶ 21 Paragraph one states, "[a] judgment is not a lien on real estate for longer than 7 years from the time it is entered or revived, unless...