Dore v. Quezada
77 N.E.3d 764
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Dore obtained an ex parte judgment against Carlos Quezada, Jr. and Tapas Quezada, Inc. for unpaid legal fees and pursued supplemental proceedings under Ill. S. Ct. Rule 277 / 735 ILCS 5/2-1402 to discover assets.
- Plaintiff served a citation on Quezada by substitute service at an apartment owned and occupied by Baongoc Aggen (Broadview cooperative unit); plaintiff also served citations on Broadview Cooperative Apartments, Inc. and Aggen.
- Discovery showed stock certificates for the cooperative unit initially listing Aggen and Quezada as joint tenants; Broadview later reissued shares replacing Quezada with Aggen’s parents.
- Aggen produced documentary evidence and testimony that her parents (from Vietnam) supplied all purchase funds, she executed the closing documents alone, and she had the unit titled with Quezada’s name at the closing only at the closing agent’s suggestion and for convenience/protective reasons.
- The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, found the Broadview unit was held in a resulting trust for Aggen (so Quezada had no attachable interest), denied plaintiff’s motions for judgment and sanctions, and sua sponte quashed the substitute service on Quezada. Plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Broadview unit was held in a resulting trust for Aggen | Dore: stock showing joint tenancy and placement of Quezada’s name indicate intent to give him an interest | Aggen: she (and her parents) paid all purchase funds; Quezada’s name was placed for convenience/protection; resulting trust arises where one pays purchase price but title taken in another’s name | Affirmed: trial court’s finding of a resulting trust for Aggen was not against the manifest weight of the evidence |
| Whether the trial court improperly relied on Quezada’s affidavit | Dore: court relied on debtor’s affidavit without him appearing | Aggen: affidavit was cumulative of her testimony | Harmless error / no reversible error: affidavit was cumulative; credibility findings supported by documentary and live testimony |
| Whether sanctions were warranted for negotiation of a $1,000 check payable to Aggen and Quezada | Dore: negotiation violated citation and showed concealment; sanctions under Rule 137, Rule 219, or court's inherent authority were appropriate | Aggen: funds traceable to her parents; check issued and reissued by escrow agent because names appeared; Quezada had no garnishable interest | No abuse of discretion: trial court properly declined sanctions as Quezada had no attachable interest in the funds |
| Whether substitute service on Quezada at Aggen’s apartment was effective | Dore: substitute service on Aggen at that address sufficed | Respondents: Quezada did not reside at that address; server’s affidavit and witness testimony showed it was not his usual abode | Affirmed: trial court correctly quashed service—substitute service under 735 ILCS 5/2-203(a)(2) requires usual place of abode and strict compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Bazydlo v. Volant, 164 Ill. 2d 207 (credibility findings in bench trial reviewed for manifest weight of the evidence)
- Leonardi v. Loyola University of Chicago, 168 Ill. 2d 83 (standard for manifest weight review)
- In re Estate of Wilson, 81 Ill. 2d 349 (elements and burden for resulting trust)
- Gary-Wheaton Bank v. Meyer, 130 Ill. App. 3d 87 (purchase price paid by one grantee supports resulting trust despite deed naming joint grantees)
- Prassa v. Corcoran, 24 Ill. 2d 288 (equity raises resulting trust to protect purchaser who paid purchase price)
- State Bank of Lake Zurich v. Thill, 113 Ill. 2d 294 (strict compliance required for return of abode substitute service)
- Dowd & Dowd, Ltd. v. Gleason, 181 Ill. 2d 460 (sanctions under Rule 137 are within trial court discretion)
- Zucker v. United States Computer Corp., 85 Ill. App. 3d 759 (designation as remitter does not necessarily create garnishable interest)
- County of Lake v. Spare Things, 27 Ill. App. 3d 179 (personal jurisdiction required to enforce contempt orders)