Door Properties, LLC v. Nahlawi
2021 IL App (1st) 190235
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- Door Properties holds an approximately $750,000 judgment against Ayad M. Nahlawi and has pursued collection for years through successive post-judgment discovery and citation proceedings.
- In 2018 Door Properties served a Supplemental Rider to its citation seeking documents and interrogatory answers about living and other expenses paid for Nahlawi by about 29 identified individuals/entities (27 document requests and 10 interrogatories).
- Nahlawi objected to each request as vague, overbroad, irrelevant to citation purposes, and disproportionate under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 201(c)(3).
- On November 20, 2018 the trial court overruled Nahlawi’s objections and ordered him to respond; he did not fully comply.
- Nahlawi moved for a “friendly” contempt finding; the court found him in willful noncompliance on December 13, 2018 and imposed $100 per day until he purged the contempt by responding.
- On appeal Nahlawi challenged overruling of objections and the contempt citation, but he failed to provide transcripts or an adequate record; the appellate court affirmed, presuming the trial court acted properly given its broad discretion and the incomplete record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly overruled Nahlawi's relevancy and proportionality objections to supplemental discovery about expenses paid by third parties | Requests were relevant to uncovering funds funneled to Nahlawi and therefore proper for post-judgment discovery | Requests were vague, overbroad, irrelevant to citation scope, and disproportionate to any likely benefit | Affirmed: court properly overruled objections; appellate review deferred because record absent and discovery rulings are discretionary |
| Whether the trial court properly found Nahlawi in civil contempt and imposed daily sanctions for failing to answer the supplemental discovery | Contempt and sanctions were warranted given continued noncompliance after order to respond | Contempt was improper because objections remained and responses were not required | Affirmed: contempt upheld; without transcript appellate court presumes trial court acted within discretion and that contempt was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Foutch v. O'Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (Ill. 1984) (when appellant fails to provide an adequate record, appellate court will presume trial court acted in accordance with law and facts; discretionary rulings are not reviewable without a transcript)