Goodwin v. Matthews
123 N.E.3d 460
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Goodwin sued Kenneth Matthews in forcible entry and detainer seeking possession of a Chicago unit and unpaid rent; initial sheriff service failed and process was posted after special process server reported inability to serve.
- On July 28, 2017, plaintiffs amended the complaint to add owner Ray Rabideau, dismissed one defendant, and the circuit court entered an order of possession against Matthews (no money judgment).
- Matthews filed a pro se motion to dismiss (2-619) asserting lack of standing by Goodwin and later filed a motion to quash service by posting, claiming he was in actual possession and not concealed in the State; he also later filed a jury demand after the possession order was entered.
- Counsel for plaintiffs obtained leave to post summons after four failed attempts by a special process server; Matthews submitted affidavits asserting he lived at the premises and attached a five-day notice he said was delivered after suit was filed (and an affidavit from the alleged server denying service).
- The circuit court denied Matthews’s motions to quash and to vacate, struck his untimely jury demand, and granted an oral amendment adding Rabideau; Matthews appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to strictly comply with Act service/notice requirements deprived court of subject-matter jurisdiction | Goodwin: complaint presented a justiciable matter under the Act so court had jurisdiction | Matthews: lacked five-day notice/service so circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction | Court: statutory service defects are not jurisdictional post-Belleville Toyota; jurisdiction existed |
| Whether Matthews was entitled to a five-day notice under section 9-209 before suit | Goodwin: no evidence Matthews was a lessee; section 9-209 not triggered | Matthews: was in actual possession and entitled to five-day notice; notice improperly posted or delivered after suit | Court: record shows no landlord-tenant relationship or lease including Matthews, so he was not entitled to the five-day notice |
| Whether striking Matthews’s jury demand was error | Goodwin: jury demand deadline not missed | Matthews: striking jury demand reversible error | Court: Matthews missed the deadline (did not file by required appearance date), so striking the demand was proper |
| Whether Matthews was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on motion to quash service | Goodwin: special process server affidavit showed due diligence; Matthews waived objections | Matthews: filed counteraffidavit showing actual possession and requested hearing | Court: Matthews submitted to jurisdiction by filing a 2-619 motion (raising different grounds) and thus waived service objections; no evidentiary hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- Belleville Toyota, 199 Ill. 2d 325 (statutory prerequisite noncompliance does not deprive circuit court of constitutional subject-matter jurisdiction)
- First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128 (appellate court may proceed when appellee does not file a brief)
- Vogel v. Dawdy, 107 Ill. 2d 68 (Act specifies when a prior written demand is required; five-day notice requirement applies only to landlord–tenant situations)
- American Management Consultant, LLC v. Carter, 392 Ill. App. 3d 39 (discussed prior appellate rulings treating service defects as jurisdictional)
- Figueroa v. Deacon, 404 Ill. App. 3d 48 (similar appellate authority on strict compliance with Act—distinguished by majority due to Belleville Toyota)
- Morris v. Martin-Trigona, 89 Ill. App. 3d 85 (pre-Belleville authority noting statutory procedure deviations previously deemed jurisdictional)