Danaher v. Knightsbridge Co.
| Decision Date | 09 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-562,77-562 |
| Citation | 372 N.E.2d 862,56 Ill.App.3d 977,14 Ill.Dec. 583 |
| Parties | , 14 Ill.Dec. 583 Robert W. DANAHER and Doris Danaher, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KNIGHTSBRIDGE COMPANY, a corporation, Nicholas Herman, William Bibo, and the Gallery of Homes Northwest, a corporation, Defendants, William Bibo, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Michael G. Cheronis and Kenneth A. Green, Chicago, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Rudd & Dickler, Marshall N. Dickler, Schaumburg, for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiffs Robert and Doris Danaher filed suit to recover damages incurred from defendants' breach of contract. A default judgment was entered against all defendants on April 18, 1975. On January 4, 1977, defendant Bibo filed a petition for relief from judgment pursuant to Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 110, par. 72. The motion was granted the same day and on January 11, 1977, defendant Bibo filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 110, par. 45. The motion to dismiss was granted on January 20, 1977 and on February 16, 1977, plaintiffs filed the instant appeal.
On appeal plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred (1) in vacating the default judgment against Bibo because Bibo's attorney was negligent in failing to file an answer to the complaint; and (2) in granting Bibo's motion to dismiss the complaint.
We reverse and remand with directions.
The facts are not disputed. Plaintiffs Robert and Doris Danaher filed suit for breach of contract against defendants. According to the contract, Knightsbridge Company was to construct and sell a dwelling to plaintiffs. A default judgment of $17,526 was entered against defendants on April 18, 1975.
On January 4, 1977 defendant Bibo filed a petition for relief from judgment pursuant to Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 110, par. 72. In substance Bibo alleged that he did not sign the contract and that he had never been an officer, employee or shareholder in defendant Knightsbridge Company. He further alleged that the default judgment entered against him was improper because his attorney assured him that all matters would be resolved, and then failed to file an answer to the complaint. Bibo's motion was granted that same day.
On January 11, 1977, Bibo filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 110, par. 45. In establishing grounds for granting the motion, Bibo alleged the same matters set forth earlier in his petition for relief from judgment. The motion to dismiss was granted on January 20, 1977.
In the order granting the motion to dismiss, the trial court struck paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of an affidavit submitted by plaintiff Doris Danaher in response to Bibo's motion to dismiss. The trial court did not state the reason why these paragraphs were struck. Paragraphs 4 and 5 alleged that Bibo was present when the contract was signed and that he held himself out to be a partner in the Knightsbridge Company. Paragraph 6 alleged that the affiant was not aware that defendant Knightsbridge was a corporation due to the fact that the contract referred only to "Knightsbridge Company." Consequently, based on the complaint, contract, and supporting affidavits, the trial court held that no cause of action existed with respect to Bibo as a matter of law.
On February 16, 1977, plaintiffs filed the instant appeal. Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in (1) vacating the default judgment against Bibo because the negligence of Bibo's attorney in failing to file an answer to the complaint or in otherwise appearing, should be imputed to Bibo; and (2) in granting Bibo's motion to dismiss the complaint.
We first consider plaintiffs' contention that the trial court erred in granting Bibo's petition for relief from the default judgment.
An appeal is perfected by filing a notice of appeal and the notice of appeal is the only jurisdictional step in the appellate process. (Wells v. Kern (1975), 25 Ill.App.3d 93, 322 N.E.2d 496.) Supreme Court Rule 303 provides further that:
" * * * the notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the circuit court within 30 days after the entry of the final judgment appealed from, or, if a timely post-trial motion directed against the judgment is filed, whether in a jury or non-jury case, within 30 days after the entry of the order disposing of the motion. * * * " (Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 110A, par. 303(a).)
Here Bibo's petition seeking relief from judgment was granted on January 4, 1977. However, plaintiffs did not file their appeal from that order until February 16, 1977. Because more than thirty days elapsed before the appeal was filed, this court lacks jurisdiction to determine whether the trial court's order vacating the judgment was proper.
As to plaintiffs' contention that the trial court erred in granting Bibo's motion to dismiss the complaint, we agree. It is well settled that a motion to dismiss is in the nature of a general demurrer and admits all facts well pleaded in the complaint. (Matchett v. Rose (1976), 36 Ill.App.3d 638, 344 N.E.2d 770; Zanbetiz v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (1966), 72 Ill.App.2d 192, 219 N.E.2d 98.) However, in Bibo's motion to dismiss the complaint, he denied a factual issue implicitly raised in the complaint as to the nature of his relationship with defendant Knightsbridge Company. He did this by asserting that at no time was he an officer, employee or shareholder of defendant Knightsbridge. Plaintiffs responded by submitting an affidavit with their response stating that Bibo held himself out to be a partner in defendant Knightsbridge Company and that he was present when the contract was signed.
While plaintiffs' allegation that Bibo held himself out to be a partner should have been included in the complaint or an amendment thereto, this fact is not sufficient to sustain Bibo's motion to dismiss. At the time Bibo filed his motion to dismiss, he understood the nature of the cause of action against him. Further, a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action unless it appears that no set of facts could be proved under the pleadings which would entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Fechtner v. Lake County Savings & Loan Ass'n (1977), 66 Ill.2d 128, 5 Ill.Dec. 252, 361 N.E.2d 575.) Consequently, by striking paragraphs 4, 5...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
F.H. Prince & Co., Inc. v. Towers Financial Corp.
...(E.g., Application of County Treasurer (1990), 208 Ill.App.3d 561, 153 Ill.Dec. 528, 567 N.E.2d 486; Danaher v. Knightsbridge Co. (1978), 56 Ill.App.3d 977, 14 Ill.Dec. 583, 372 N.E.2d 862.) "A final judgment is one which fixes absolutely and finally the rights of the parties in the lawsuit......
-
IN RE APPLICATION OF COUNTY TREASURER
...days after it comes final and appealable (Lurie Co. v. Teichner (1978), 63 Ill.App.3d 950 , 380 N.E.2d 959; Danaher v. Knightsbridge Co. (1978), 56 Ill. App.3d 977 , 372 N.E.2d 862); however, it retains the inherent power to review an order before it becomes final or within 30 days thereaft......
-
Bean v. Norfolk and W. Ry. Co.
...process, but the filing of said notice within the requisite time period is mandatory. (Danaher v. Knightsbridge Co. (1st Dist. 1978), 56 Ill.App.3d 977, 979, 14 Ill.Dec. 583, 372 N.E.2d 862; Case International Co. v. American National Bank & Trust Company of Chicago (1st Dist. 1974), 18 Ill......
-
People v. Mompier
...decision to vacate the judgment of bond forfeiture and to refund the bond deposit to Smith. See Danaher v. Knightsbridge Co. (1978), 56 Ill.App.3d 977, 14 Ill.Dec. 583, 372 N.E.2d 862 (an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review a trial judge's order vacating a judgment if 30 days elaps......