Glens of Hanover Condominium Association v. Carbide
6 N.E.3d 856
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Glens of Hanover Condominium Association filed a 2010 forcible entry and detainer action seeking possession of Unit 1624-2 and related charges.
- After failed service attempts, plaintiff obtained alternative service and secured a default judgment including attorney fees.
- Defendant moved to quash service and vacate the default; appellate court reversed and vacated the default judgment in Carbide I, without remanding.
- Following reversal, defendant filed a turnover motion for possession, rents, and attorneys’ fees; plaintiff sought to set the case for trial.
- Trial court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to entertain turnover or set for trial because there was no remand; defendant appealed.
- Issue presented: whether, after reversal without remand, the trial court revests with jurisdiction over ministerial matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction after reversal without remand. | Glens contends defendant’s turnover filing submits to trial court jurisdiction. | Carbide asserts the trial court retains jurisdiction to entertain motions following reversal. | No jurisdiction revestment after reversal without remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Watkins v. Dunbar, 318 Ill. 174 (Illinois, 1925) (reversal without remand does not revest jurisdiction; enforcement possible only with remand)
- Dalan/Jupiter, Inc. v. Draper & Kramer, Inc., 372 Ill. App. 3d 362 (Illinois Appellate, 2007) (reversal without remand does not revest trial court with jurisdiction)
- Brandon v. Caisse, 172 Ill. App. 3d 841 (Illinois Appellate, 1988) (concerns lack of remand and effect on jurisdiction to award fees)
- McNeil v. Ketchens, 2011 IL App (4th) 110253 (Illinois Appellate (4th Dist.), 2011) (partially affirms and reverses can revest jurisdiction; here reversal without remand did not revest)
- Berger v. Matthews, 216 Ill. App. 3d 942 (Illinois Appellate, 1991) (collateral fee issues do not affect appealability of the judgment)
