Protein Partners, LLP v. Lincoln Provision, Inc.
407 Ill. App. 3d 709
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Protein Partners registered an Ohio default-judgment against Lincoln Provision in Cook County after Lincoln Provision failed to respond in Ohio.
- Ohio judgment identified Protein Partners as plaintiff and Chicago Gourmet Steaks as defendant; Lincoln Provision later used alias 'Chicago Gourmet Steaks'.
- Protein Partners registered the Ohio judgment in Illinois under the Foreign Judgments Act (735 ILCS 5/12-650 et seq.).
- Lincoln Provision moved to quash the Illinois registration 37 days after filing, arguing improper service, misnaming, and lack of standing in Ohio.
- Circuit court denied the motion to quash; Lincoln Provision appealed, raising jurisdiction, 2-1401 petition characterization, and due process/notice issues.
- Appellate court held jurisdiction to review under 304(b)(3); ultimately affirmed the circuit court, upholding registration of the Ohio judgment in Illinois.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to hear quash motion | Protein Partners contends circuit court had jurisdiction to hear the 2-1401 petition | Lincoln Provision argues lack of timely postjudgment challenge and revestiture issues | Circuit court had jurisdiction; final order reviewable |
| Characterization as a 2-1401 petition | Motion to quash can be viewed as a 2-1401 petition for void judgment | Motion should be treated as direct challenge to judgment validity or extrinsic fraud | Motion treated as a 2-1401 petition; de novo review on voidness grounds |
| Grounds to overturn the Ohio judgment | No valid extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction; Ohio service valid | Alcoholized misnaming and service issues undermine validity | No grounds to void; extrinsic fraud not proven; service valid under Ohio law |
| Effect of misnomer or name changes | Names mismatched (Protein Partners vs Protein Partners, LLP) are curable misnomers | Misnaming shows fraud or fatal defect to registration | Technical name variations do not render registration void; real parties identified |
| Validity of service when Ohio method used | Service valid under Ohio law; Illinois public policy not violated | Service by certified mail to a corporate address offends Illinois due process/public policy | Ohio service valid; not violative of due process or Illinois policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Falcon v. Faulkner, 209 Ill.App.3d 1 (1991) (intrinsic vs extrinsic fraud; defenses not collateral when not extrinsic)
- Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of Education, 201 Ill.2d 95 (2002) (section 2-1401 petition for void judgment; de novo review)
- Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Duree, 319 Ill.App.3d 1032 (2001) (collateral attacks to foreign judgments limited to enumerated grounds)
- Ayers Asphalt Paving, Inc. v. Allen Rose Cement & Construction Co., 109 Ill.App.3d 520 (1982) (misnomer attempts; proper scope of Foreign Judgments Act)
- Thill (State Bank of Lake Zurich) v., 113 Ill.2d 294 (1986) (defective service can be challenged; lack of personal jurisdiction timing)
- Czekala v. Sealand Foods, 379 Ill.App.3d 737 (2008) (misnomer vs mistaken identity; intent governs proper party identification)
- Padilla v. Vazquez, 223 Ill.App.3d 1018 (1992) (failure to raise service argument forfeits objections)