entered by judge maddox and as part of that order he was service was required to summons and complaint was required to be attached along with the order on february twenty second setting the march ninth date and that border and service was sent to three addresses one of which was the twenty nine forty seven south all stead addressed which the defendant has subsequently admitted that that was his residence and you gets so the  mean i can't personally address that as a i wasn't there at the time that it was and the other thing is is that there is nothing in the record that says why that occurred but even if that did occur as the court in heirloom the illinois supreme court has said an heirloom that's not a sufficient basis by itself to overturn the the judge hey there is nothing that says that that was inappropriate and i would further point out their honor that in this particular case the defendant had received notice of every word or from february twenty second two thousand and ten he got back order he got the march nin two fourteen zero one actually the case law is dead say they talk about it there are cases that suggest that that can be a factor but it has to be along with other things and it has to be thirtieth day or just after the thirtieth day and therefore the reason he didn't attack the judge it within thirty days is clear well i don't i don't agree with that your honor and the reason why i don't agree with that is that in the difficulty with that argument is is that suggest that you're ignoring the defendant's lack of diligence starting with mary march ninth two thousand and ten he shows up being cleared on march ninth two thousand and ten and then is given part of the case at that point in time and sent out an order saying that we're going to have a subsequent hearing to deal with the merits of this complaint and whether the defendant knew of the conduct of of thing is well gee i didn't get a copy of the judgment order entered on december twentieth in sufficient time to contest within thirty days and i don't think that that's a basis under the law any with the case law even the case law the talks judgment was entered and the illinois supreme court said you know what based on everything that they didn't that given the fact that they knew about the case and didn't do anything about the case before that that's not a sufficient basis within which to  deny it to vacate the judgment under two fourteen zero one and so as a result the illinois supreme court upheld that and there's a more recent decision in which the i believe it's involving wal mart where the court found that it was a similar type of situation the play took had been served or the defendant had been served they didn't appear proof rope was procured a program was given treasure it was entered more than thirty days after the judgment the defendant gets notice and fails to and then finally comes in and contest and the court says sorry that's insufficient reason for the basis for vacating a judgment or two forty one petition where the defendant had knowledge of the case and it's one factor actually if i if i have suggested that i apologize i don't mean to say that it cannot be considered what i'm saying is that it is a consideration but it is not to determine to fact and that's what the illinois law for about what is what is the big effect of the failure to have the motion for special scum paired or service it's not our staff if it's not in compliance with the rules and since service is not in compliance with the rules of service effect and the answer to that is that if there is no legal effect to that and the reason why there's no legal effect is because  the statute requires that the motion be presented to the judge and judge maddox was the one who heard the motion for comparative service on february twenty second two thousand and ten and he was also the one who decided the two fourteen so he had an opportunity to say that might work or entered on february twenty second two thousand and ten was improper because i was never presented with this material that the plaintiff has now certify it was presented to me judge maddox never made any such finding he never said anything about it and there were things that we have then is we have evidence submitted by affidavit showing that this was the motion that was submitted and the fact of the matter is is that the law along recognizes when portions of the record i'm missing because they can't be found in the clerk's office what happens how is that solved and the answer is you get affidavits of people who have now age and they submit a copy of the materials filed a combined motion i'm proud of what judge larson found at the initial hearing based on case law that i supplied to her was that as a matter of law the motion to quash was beyond thirty days and could not to thirteen  one doesn't apply and there's case law that specifically says that beyond thirty days through motions that crushed do not apply and so therefore the only basis for the defendant left to proceed was on the two fourteen zero one petition and and what she did was we had a an argument at which point she raised for the first time the local motion judge's rules about how to handle it and i pointed and she said but i'm going to vague i'm going to grant the two fourteen zero one petition not on anything with the defendant presented in their petition but based on the violation of that motion  suggested to her that that wasn't really proper a but basically what we ended up doing was we ended up filing a motion to reconsider the july twenty first hearing good try twenty first order and i presented her with lot of cases showing that the local judges rule could not had more requirements than is required under the supreme court rules or this statutes regarding notice of a default motion and because the defend it was not entitled to notice but that the fault motion under the illinois supreme court rules or under any statute the judge lawyers and then said oh ok you're right plaintiff i'm going to vacat my twenty first decision and we're now back to a few fourteen zero one petition but now i'm going to send it to judge maddox because he's the one that entered the federal twenty second order so as a consequence that's where we're at sort of so the personal jurisdiction question is within two to fourteen zero one motion and so what we're going to hear in a few minutes is that even putting aside the filing or the lack of  look at the affidavits matt simms that was submitted in the in support of the motion for comparative service what you'll find is that there were several addresses that were tried including the twenty nine forty seven south also that address that there was an attempt at the name a summons was issued and in a way a summons was attempted to be served at people on that address to no avail and as asserted in the motion the people didn't would come to the door and then walk away mentioned but the twenty nine forty seven as well as the twenty eight and i forget the other into thirty five years so actually both of them i mention all of there are three addresses that were associated with this defendant's name attempts to serve him was attempts have been made and here they have been if the court finds that there's a reasonable basis for saying that there was once has been attempted then there's a basis for entering that order and this court would then have to say judge max abused  issued after february twenty second but also as of april fourteenth border that was sent out again even though we know there is no legal requirement to do so when he was defaulted there was no legal three addresses got orders according to the affidavits there's no contrary evidence the defendant never produced any evidence to contest that so no point in time to defend ever contest  so respectfully there is to be uncontested record demonstrates that he was served properly with him in response to the feb twenty second order and he would peered not only do we know that it was sent out he appeared on march night and the only way he would have appeared on my child is if he had a copy of the feb twenty second order to judge maddox required to be included along with the summons and complaint and so he appeared in court and ask to be in justice if up on all that if the defendant ignored the case for an entire year there are some point in time that the judge is over in the daily center they have to bring these things to go through to jewel three point one if you didn't it's really intense question whether or not he showed up or that court the court asked acquire jurisdiction over the person and the case lost very clear that if you don't have  any comments he didn't go through with her petition whether or not it was adequate and i do think it's important that the motion was never filed it's not a fetus were played was lost in the court file but counsel talks real to reconstruct mr simms admits in his affidavit that the motion was never filed after seeing the cases where a service by a special process server who is not officially made a special process server has been determined invalid in this case a while and want to sing ok counsel you can mail it and that mailing it be sufficient although the motion to be question after mission is not found what is it about the filing in it that makes the order itself oh boy just a basic concept but you've got another factor is if you go on the fact that it wasn't filed if something went to the court file you would never know that there was ever proper motion for a judge maddox consider and that goes to your diligence whether or that that wasn't the case if you look at that counsel waited twenty nine days i don't think anybody's you know stupid or naive i mean there's a clear reason why they waited twenty nine days according to them they sent every other word or if you look on the day of the for two desks there which you know one motion which is much more easier to accomplish so based upon the so tell me of the circumstances here i don't believe it can be said of the judge maddox party one is if there's a special relationship the row case that leaves and just cases that by virtue of a landlord had a landlord doesn't have a special relationship or a duty only possible exception in this case would be if the defendant voluntarily or contractually assumed a duty to protect against criminal acts and if you look at third amended complaint there's no allegations of it here basically th the apartment was a high crime area there was a criminal activity and the defendant owed duty concludes really philpotts fact there's no facts whatsoever indicate that m judgment like that stand when there's no underlying duty of the way the trial court reached its result as well as whether the result is within the bounds of reason to claim judge maddox was considering whether to grant the two fourteen zero one petition or not  not so in other words the defendant had the burden of proof in front of judge maddox to show almost the elements the lack of show that there was diligence in presenting his claims as well as showing that there was exception and it says while liberal construction must be given to the petition to prevent an unjust result he ended up section two first you know when relief must not be over brought him to such an extent that the principles of equity and order concept of justice are deluded which would compel the conclusion that the party obtaining the ex parte judgment would gain an unfair unjust for unconscionable advantage if the judgment were not vacated in this particular situation you would have to ignore the the defendant had notice an opportunity to be heard from starting from march ninth all the way through to december twentieth that he just didn't bother to appear in response to these workers that were being entered on his case you'd have to ignore all that and then say well the reason why he didn't appear was he didn't get the judgment order and that i don't think that that would be an appropriate resolution with respect to your other  yes it is true that there are limited circumstances in which a landlord always a duty to a person to prevent a criminal act in this particular situation though present a very unusual circumstance you look at the case laws like even the real case what you see is that the the criminal is an unknown third party and it's not the tech and his was the case here here the allegations of negligence and the willful one conduct is that the defendant rented the property to the very perpetrators that were involved in this horrible he competent very well known well regarded trial judge heard evidence not just based on what happened in the raid but he heard had a specific hearing to hear evidence about the willful watching conduct by this defendant consequently this isn't just a matter of a judgment being entered on the basis of allegations made in the complaint this is a judgement based on actual evidence significantly the defendant hasn't her back to the landlord has knowledge of the people breaking through the apartment building from the vacant apartment building to get to the other part of the building where the fuck is the ladder on the outside people keep breaking you through the ladder to break into the apartments what other actions did this land lord know about prior to the raid and do you answer to that was the evidence was produced to judge the home then i'm in a difficult position here i wasn't present at the hearing so i can't give you repeat of what happened ok i can tell you that there was that in affidavit met sims which is your met lukey which is contained in the record there was a statement he did testify that he was present and that there was evidence produced about the defendant's knowledge ok and there were specific testimony witnesses were brought in to testify to what we do not have a record here to to do that to base that determination on but if that was the legitimate if that was the real question of the real crux of what judge maddox was based basing on then that should have been dealt with in front of judge mags and the defendant had an obligation to present evidence that what judge hogan based his decision on was insufficient to withstand a judge that's where that needs to be and that didn't happen so now we're in a different wholly different position now of not having the record of the trial that occurred in front of  fourteen zero one petition if judge maddox abused his discretion in granting the two fourteen zero one petition because the defendant failed to show due diligence then that two six one five motion would have no legal