U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. In Retail Fund Algonquin Commons, LLC
992 N.E.2d 172
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- US Bank filed foreclosure against IN Retail Fund entities and related parties over a commercial development in Algonquin, Illinois.
- Plaintiff sought immediate relief including appointment of a receiver, pro hac vice admission, a TRO, and leave to amend the complaint.
- Defendants challenged service of process certificates and opposed several motions; a substitution of judge was requested by plaintiff.
- The trial court granted a receiver appointment and related relief, and denied various defense objections.
- Defendants appealed under Rule 307(a)(1), challenging multiple February–March 2013 orders but did not challenge the substantive injunctive order.
- The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 307(a)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has interlocutory appellate jurisdiction under Rule 307(a)(1). | US Bank argues the appeal includes interlocutory orders tied to injunction. | IN Retail Fund contends the challenged orders taint the injunctive order and are reviewable. | No jurisdiction under Rule 307(a)(1); dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether substitution-of-judge order is reviewable on appeal. | Bank asserts substitution order affected subsequent rulings. | Defendants claim error tainted later orders. | Not reviewable under Rule 307(a)(1). |
| Whether the trial court erred in enforcing local rule 6.05(d) regarding service with notices. | Bank argues rulings on service were proper; could be reviewed as attendant to injunctive order. | Defendants contend the notices without motions violated the rule. | Not within Rule 307(a)(1) review; issue dismissed. |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying IN Retail Fund’s motion to quash service of summons. | Bank argues service was compliant. | Defendants maintained noncompliance with Rule 101. | No jurisdiction to review under Rule 307(a)(1). |
| Whether any order challenged is reviewable as an attendant order to the injunction. | Bank asserts attendant-order review is proper. | Defendants lack a linked attendant-order basis. | No jurisdiction; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Airline Canteen Service, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 64 Ill. App. 3d 417 (1978) (interlocutory appeals are limited to specific exemptions; not a general review of all orders)
- Murges v. Bowman, 254 Ill. App. 3d 1071 (1993) (Rule 307(a)(1) appeal does not extend to non-final orders like denial of venue change)
- Berlin v. Berlin, 268 Ill. App. 3d 184 (1994) (substitution-of-judge issues may be reviewable when tied to injunctive relief; leads to broader review in some contexts)
- Kurle v. Evangelical Hospital Ass’n, 89 Ill. App. 3d 45 (1980) (substition issues discussed in context of injunctive relief and jurisdiction)
- Partipilo v. Partipilo, 331 Ill. App. 3d 394 (2002) (affirms jurisdiction over substitution issues under Rule 307 in some districts)