illinois a company in ohio court they got a judgment by default the judgment itself indicated that the plaintiff's name was not the complete name was lincoln to be protein partners and they obtained a judgment against a the only company my client and instead of listing the actual name of the company they used the d b a and said chicago gourmet steaks there is no dispute that they actually sued the company that i represent it's just that the judgment selfless that only the d b a sometime later they rock a case here to illinois registered it and do a quirk in the way that the statute allows registrations of judgments there's really no oversight in how they identify the parties in the judgment they're allowed to basically say whatever they want and what they did is they indicated this time the legal name for the point if and then they identified the legal name for the defendant changing both of them from what was in the judgment and then began a citation proceeding we came in at the point where the turnover order was being sought against my client and that's when the case became active and i think one of the key issues that the court asked us to address early on was whether in fact the court had jurisdiction to even hear this case and it's our contention that primarily anytime you bring a motion to quash objecting to the service of the summons or of any action at  all if in fact your argument relates to the fact that there was no service the court has of course jurisdiction to hear that because the court never loses jurisdiction to hear that it can be brought thirty one days after the judgment was entered it can be entered or brought here this is a way that we are the key issue here is that service was never accomplished within the parameters of the united states constitution i don't dispute that service is allowed by mail in many company and it does so by serving the company by mail whether it's registered certified doesn't matter there has to be a person that's qualified to receive the summons listed on the complaint on the actual envelope simple practice that this is who i am and i think we do that i think you have to in this case because if you don't look to the constitutionality of that issue you're allowing the plaintiff to take advantage of a statute that the federal courts judgment is otherwise valid if it's otherwise valid this court would normally give full faith and credit to that judgment the issue is is it valid and i have no dispute that there is still one of the issues that you something is important that so vital a complaint that's being served on a company the federal courts say the federal constitution is violated if in fact it's served by mail and a person that's qualified to receive that complaint would because they brought the case to illinois i have no choice but to be here and because i'm here because they brought me here it's my contention that i have the right to point out that the illinois courts have always said that if somebody is objecting to service in the sister state and it was never forgot about in that sister state it's certainly you're entitled to bring it here and i've citing the court case that was cited in our original brief but i mean the issue goes so much bigger than that the reason that weren't allowed to even fight about whether service ever happened is that it's simply improper every court that has ever addressed that exact issue about me and i think you judgment in time when they served the citation to discover assets on him and it's attached a cademy to try to you know right when you're writing in a hurry to stop a turnover order from being entered and if there's any fault with the way that it was conveyed the fault lies with me because we were faced with suddenly we have a citation to discover assets and it's up on a hearing for a turnover order and so we were trying to both explain yes we do know about the judgment but it was after the fact it was after the judgment was entered in the ohio court it was after the judgment was entered and after the case was registered because under illinois law you know really even have to do much as far as registering the judgment before you're allowed to begin collection proceedings you register at that judgment is valid and bang you're in court right then during a citation and that's what happened there's no wait period there's no thirty days that you have to hold out for you do it in your court that's what we did but it was just simply me trying to convey that we do know about the judgment obviously we wouldn't be in court arguing about it if we didn't know about it but what we did not know about was the fact that the company had a judgment entered against it by an ohio court if there's one thing i wouldn't do it's come to this court saying let me use tricky language and argue that we didn't know about something along here saying and i had my fingers crossed the whole time y as it has in the house supreme court has said that it's an acceptable method of service and yet every time i look for cases in federal court explaining what the federal constitution requires every one of the cases has in fact said no you can't serve people by simply identifying a company name and not putting a registered agent in office or a president somebody of that nature and in fact ironically i was in the bankruptcy court and this comes up all the time in bankruptcy courts and that's why the majority of the cases perhaps all of the cases we cited are baker c cases because it's just something that comes up so frequently where somebody will try to bring a contested matter and they by serving a company by regular mail and just as i said on friday in a bankruptcy court and to page county where they hold hearings for two page county people somebody brought an argument that they were bringing a motion for sanctions against the company and ju squires stopped them and said i concerned you don't have service here they can look you didn't do it now i have no argument that one of the reasons that the vacancy courts impose that requirement is that it says so in their bankruptcy statute will seven thousand and four however as the cases say were seven thousand and forty doesn't create the right in fact all the cases say we're talking about a constitutional right we're seven thousand and four from the bankruptcy code simply mimics what the constitution requires that i think that we have no choice but to do that this case is before this court and they're asking to enforce this judgment and under the well established principles of registrations of foreign judgments we get the right to then explain why it is that we're not supposed to have turn over order entered against our assets and that was the court case that i cited and the court case specifically said if the jurisdiction in the foreign court has never been thought about because it was a default judgment and then the the judgment is brought here to illinois where else can that dispute be brought and that's the whole point of the registration if if there weren't a basis to come to court and say hey we object to the jurisdiction of the wouldn't even be a registration procedure it would simply be you get to register the judgment and you go forward and i know it sounds like it's one of those things we go why are we disputing what it in ohio court says and the reason is because the ohio statute is as it does and yet what we're supposed to do is this court and all the appellate courts of all the different states are often required to look at the constitutionality of the federal statute or of a statute in terms of the federal constitution in are the issues about expensive if you need a a label to put it on i guess extrinsic fraud would be the cleanest way to think of it in specially in terms of changing the names of the parties but let me use an example of what if in fact they did  jurisdiction over who can provision in ohio and right if they have jurisdiction how can we argue about the point i'm making is that's what is a saying you can't change the names of the parties there's no fundamental basis for it there's a that relate to the end here that judgment in ohio in the first place so it's not just a question of here is a valid judgments away i'm asking the illinois were to  perhaps another avenue that we can explore the issue is when you're talking about faith and credit and not just talking about the judgments you're talking about of statutes as well of rules that pertain to what against we have to give full faith and credit to the judgment says and if the judgment is looked at there please no reference to anything about the defendant and that's my point i'm saying for heaven's sakes let's not let them have both things let's not let them say we get to look at the judgment and that's conclusive but we also get to look at the facts that support the judgment to get to where we want to be if the stock saying we have to look at the judgment only then would say that let's not let a party come to the illinois courts and test if we acknowledge that they have a judgment that isn't valid  by changing the names of the parties to the registration of judgment statute and this goes to your point your honor it has a very limited purpose it is to let you register a judgment and everybody has that right if it's been entered but it specifically does that's the jurisdiction of the court registering that judgment they understand that they can't just register that judgment and go forward they want the court to look at all the facts that support it and if they want that to happen then please what's good for the goose is good for the gander if they want to say let's look at otherwise what you're letting them do i think is going to win the jurisdiction of any court in this state by saying we're going to registry judgment but now we want to identify things and make it very clear if they want to live with what they've got in ohio that's fine but they can't come to this court under a statute that lets them do one thing only one thing register a judgment and then start changing the names why don't we let them change the amount still in the one of your main arguments  ohio or i'm granted if you if the illinois court let them e question then yes i would be i would be pleased if that's what the court did if it said you're right they don't get to change the names of the parties when they come to the going to court because it seems to me that they might as well be allowed to referring to let them it's their problem if they want to fix it don't let them use this court or the lower court as kind of a rubber stamp for you to play fast and loose with ohio rules and you get to play fast and loose with the illinois rules as well doing that we agree with you well let me let me back up there is no entity mean chicago or may states to have jurisdiction over him so it's a tough question to answer in the confines of what you're asking me it's as if i one of them this is example used in my i've brought a case against frango mints i have jurisdiction or if i get a judgment against friendly governments i have no jurisdiction over whatever company ends up owning the marshall fields whether it's macy's federated department stores etc and you end  a procedural nightmare where happens if a company named lincoln provision wants to sell the name that it has chicago gourmet steaks to another entity but continue doing business and this is a problem that comes up where products lines are served all the time now they have a judgment in ohio again state what amounts to a product line and the realty company continues to exist the issue is that having the judgment that they did against only what's a ghost it's an illusion it's a d b a they need to modify their judgment you know that's i guess there is no jurisdiction in this court to actually go back and decide that they need a procedure on the stake in the ohio court that's something that they need to do  ohio court and if they want to have a judgment against a nonentity that they have in ohio there really isn't jurisdiction you know hisle for anything according to the judgment now they might have a right to go back to open up their judgment but listen when they do that then we're going to be there to say what do you do when you don't if you're going to modify the judgment then we get to argue about it too but i guess that's my quick if they want to have this fight about who's the real party who should the judgment be against that's where it should be brought in the aisle not here not using the fact that we didn't get a chance to object when they did bring the vasu because you don't get notice of the fact that it's registered until after it's been registered  caption the caption of vo ohio lawsuit reads that it is protein partners five twenty hundred to kota road richfield ohio four four two eight six as the plaintiff versus lincoln provision incorporated doing business at chicago mistakes eight to four west thirty eighth place chicago illinois six zero six zero nine defendant i also note that in apparel this is the ohio it your responsibility as a plaintiff to make sure that the judgment reflects exactly the name or the caption the parties that were sued in the case of the first i think it's important to make sure that the parties are correctly identified and if there's no confusion in the case draw so you think that you have to doesn't have to reflect the caption that i'm with the case was filed i don't think that if there is no chance of confusion as court i also think that you know this is a situation where the defendant who the judgment is entered against has an opportunity if he believes the judge was incorrect  would i would answer that i believe that the responsibility for ensuring that the caption matches the parties is a response was a i would say is a shared responsibility between the person entered seeking to enter the the order and the court reviewing that order upon entry i would expand upon that answer your honor say that the primary responsibility when doing these is to ensure that there is no confusion created by the caption or the entry of the order and i don't think there's any confusion in this case as to who the actual parties were i don't think there's any confusion in this case as to the fact that the the actual the defendant that's you know sitting  that i don't think it's because i say there is and i think that the facts in front of this tribunal clearly show that there was no confusion as to the parties in this case i mean that that is our position that's been our position consistently throughout and i  think that use indicated that there's it does it's that it seems clear that they were not serve i don't think it is clear i think that we have actual service under  illinois rules that has been found every court that has looked at the ohio rules of civil procedure regards sort of corporations has upheld the rule under which they were served there's no dispute that the out well i don't know given the unique arguments that we presented with that we would not be here but i think that would not bat issue would not be before certainly  hear you should be troubled by errors errors is not being used in a way that actually eliminates this case in any way shape or form is  against b they come back to enforce the judgement out outside the original state and they say oh wait we didn't serve the we didn't get a judgment we didn't want to judgment against b we didn't want to serve the we wanted to se company rose construction was an individuals unregistered assume named individuals not associated with the what is it the allen row cement construction company which was a corporate entity so and service was sent to and obtained upon this individual in the name of this assumed company they didn't have that person in that assumed company had no relation to who should have been the actual defendant in the case and that's where the problem was the problem was not that they mixed up the name not that they didn't get the name quite right when they served you know on the correct defendant they serve the wrong to think they served the wrong defendant they got a judgment against the wrong defendant absolutely you don't get to correct that when you register a judgment that's not the case here absolutely bake the actual thing defend it had no opportunity because it wasn't that they didn't see the envelope or whatever no service was actually sent to them and they nit pick and that case there was no question that they got no notice whatsoever because the notice went to a completely unrelated party to them they did not have an opportunity to step up and defend their case lincoln did lincoln gotten that notice properly served under the correctly made and make it very clear that what appellant is asking for here he wants to say he's not but what he's asking for he's asking this court to rule that illinois will not give full faith and credit to ohio judgments when they're served on a corporation under the relevant rules that have been held to be constitutional in ohio by the ohio supreme court  with the caption it is our position that we are registering against we are registering exactly against the parties that the judge was entering at when my question and i know that that what you want to answer but i want you to answer my question which is i you the caption does not match the caption of the judgment does not match the caption of the lawsuit and we have and between now we have one issue where approaching partners was not identified as an lp in the caption even though it was done to fight as an l will go back to work you said your honor i don't i don't don't believe you should disregard it i believe that you should look at that in the context the case and ask yourself whether there was actually any confusion whether that is a substan judgment here but i you know i can't speculate as to what the the consideration was if there was a consideration to go back to ohio or four years for another questions related to the same thing occurred in illinois their one name and then the the court entered a judgment without under a different name from the case caption before you could do anything else in the case would you need to seek leave or to amend that judgment wanted to match the if there was an accident just do it without i think if there was actual confusion as to who the parties were you may need to seek leave to amend however i will say that so that the of the triggering factor is whether  opportunity to challenge the actual entry to want you to answer my question i know what their arguments are and yours to believe me we're afraid this very very carefully but i just want you to answer my question what is what would be the procedure if i judgment was entered in ohio i think that it came here we put the question is do you need leave of court or not and i think we've already agreed that in order to man the the judgment order your court is this idea that they were somehow dragged into ohio and dragged into illinois the lawsuit in ohio was filed in ohio because lincoln partners hired my client to solicit business in ohio it's where the transactions occurred it was proper place to file the complaint we're here now because lincoln partners refused to pay on the judgment so you go to where the business is you know to collect on the judgment it's a view that you know protein was somehow scamming the countryside for you know the bill of deficient due process is frankly absurd and that's all i will say about that the other thing that i think is just before i sit down i just must be pointed out is the one argument you will never you have not heard it's not in the briefs it's not in any of the briefs below is that lincoln part lincoln provision points here one is i thought they'd clarified my point in which i indicated in response to your question rather that there was no jurisdiction in this court for the judgement against lincoln provision the issue  being that they changed the names on the orders and although i originally said that there was it wasn't a void judgment my point is it is a void judgment tonight i thought i clarified that if i finish talking it's as void as a judgment would be if a company were sued for a thousand dollars and then the order entered said that one million dollars was owed supreme court rule one o five says that if you're going to seek a change to the judgment that  suing about if the relief that you want to stiffen the relief from the complaint you have to give notice to the people that are being sued and that's my point about what happened here just that's two things register and the judgment and when they came to illinois and they changed what that judgment was they've implicitly recognize that there's a problem by having a judgment the caption by the way just to be clear of the judgment says  and if you're going to allow people then to say you know what facts were really more important than the ones that the court entered and then let all the plaintiffs that have foreign judgments decide what facts it is that they think what you see on time but the fact that they entered a judgment against a non existent entity came to illinois and then changed the name because they felt that that's not a real big deal that they're allowed to do that and i'm suggesting you're you're responding here on this point about there was no confusion who the real we think that there's fourteen thousand dollars in costs so we're going to enter the judgment in illinois that said sixteen thousand dollars for actual damages plus fourteen thousand dollars in costs because we just didn't get around to putting that up in front of the judge but we could if we wanted to know what else is out there that we're going to have to do that was kind of the point of that that case that i had cited which said very much like what the issue was with ayers you can't just have a judgment against one entity and then think that you can kind of use a little procedural massaging to then you have a judgment against a different entity we're opening up the door for going to let them say that they can change certain facts that are in the judgment and we leave it to the discretion of the plaintiff to do that there's a procedure for what they want to do that's to go back to the ohio court we'd love them to go back to the ohio court because then for the first time we would get the chance to bring the arguments that we want to bring but we're really basically it's based on the a higher court is going to let us argue after the ohio supreme court about service and all of that what we're saying is if they want to go back and modify the judgment as they tried to do here let them do it in ohio that's what is supposed to happen we're supposed to give full faith and credit to judgments that were entered the judgment is entered against chicago steaks that's as far as it should go ever they don't get to pick and choose now that we've got it we're going to change it we're going to bring it here thank you