citation proceedings the citation was issued to time and see in company care of life city mr city two appeared on may nineteenth two thousand and four he took the plaintiff's counsel and mr statute that plaintiff is relying on mr city who prior to filing any pleading or motion asked to object to the court's jurisdiction over his person otherwise he waived that argument now crew agreed that he was appearing in court and he agreed to the terms of the payment order he did not sign the payment order however what he did was he complied with the terms of that payment order for a period of six years from an entry of the default judgment from the entry of that pain in order back in two thousand and four he complied with the terms that were written in that payment order and that payment orders what's up how much is he seven thousand five hundred dollars he made seventy five individual payments now interests he hasn't come up with everything that's all on the case but he made and consented to that pain in order seventy five different times by complying with the terms of that order and that payment ordered splashed expressly recognizes that he's president open court and that he is personally guaranteeing the hundred dollar payments per month at the time that this complaint was she realizes that there is no corporation in existence anymore why would she agree to hundred dollar payments from our from a dissolve corporation it's got all the assets it's going to have there's no reason to accept  he was coarse and coursed into appearing through false representations by plaintiff's counsel at the time miss quincey was attorney for the plaintiff at this time she was a young attorney and on a citation discover o of this corporation to appear and testify as to the assets that are available of this cooperation for the outstanding seventy five hundred dollars judgment the judgment against the corporation has always been valid that there isn't anything to show that our city was an officer of the corporation or that he was had the ability to testify and the plaintiffs not and not forced to accept any lower level one voice testimony as i cite in my then he has the ability to do that if he's going to contest jurisdiction he needs to do that at that time disappearance before he does any other matters before the court the primary case  your judge grates you do not have jurisdiction over me at this time to file a motion debate that you fought judge and that back in two thousand and four he didn't file a motion to vacate the default judgment until two thousand and six years later so he recognized doherty of the court order him for six years now the second issue is before the court today is the payment order that was entered for the court was also vacated by judge chris freeze he ordered the seventy five hundred dollars payments and then received by the plaintiffs to be refunded to the defendant well the payment to bearing that payment order or if there's some other evidence of fraud like the defendant is claiming is evidence here but the defendant failed to hav the defendant is now raising the argument here on appeal that hey this was based on fraud this couldn't speak out she issued a citation that stated that there was a default judgment against mr evidence of that citation notice to say that he relied upon fraud or there's some violation against public policy if you look at the terms of the payment order it's not a big one hundred dollars payments from i don't i don't feel that there's any ambiguity but the defendant is relying on one term the defendant is saying that paragraph two of the payment order that on the defendant was defaulted by reason of his failure to appear after having been given notice of hearing on the member twenty thousand well i don't think that it was pointless intention to state that  mr city to appear and he agreed that the jurisdiction of the court is valid against him whether or not he personally received service or not and just to be clear i mean he had to have for approximately ten years plaintiffs have been using various antics in this case to try to confuse who the defendants are and to whom a judgment wise often referring to two separate defendants as the defendant diamond sitting company and or diamond seating company and the city the place philosophy in this case all along has been one defendant is as good as the other in fact and we argued this case the judge freezing doesn't arguments back in july of two thousand and ten mr lynch even said well he was the president of the company they're one in the same we could have pierce the corporate veil anyway your arse more than once in this case i'm going to argue that there are certain waivers of arguments made on deal holding up to  view the total of the response in opposition to the motion of a case up with the circuit court it's three pages but only about two pages of substance and that's all of the references to records citations already and arguments made the point of lost at the circuit court did not equip the circuit court with the tools necessary to rule in its favor but then is following the brief in this case finally raising authority and arguments in its  defendants it was a verified complaint for breach of a written contract and it expressly stated that diamond seating company entered into the contract with point and that it did so with the city crew as he disclosed the agent that would show that hearing and what agreement took place it's not in the record i don't know if a diligent inquiry was made or not but that's the plainest burden to do so to establish if there was some agreement resulting in order because of the payment order it's tracked by the plaint the it was a court order and why he was forced to make a payment he did and when he wasn't he was picked up by the sheriffs and put in jail they are in the record every time relationship between mr so you can be in the court which he was an agent of a corporation or you well he was the presidents of he was also an employee the owner he was also the owner but it was an illinois corporation point of advances also the argument that the payments were was with the city guarantee that created by corporations neither of these arguments were advanced to the circuit court and they therefore are both waived but even if they even if they were not waive thousand and three runners look at the transcript you see there was the stoushes about him finally for personal bankruptcy and that possibly discharging his personal obligations if the debt was only if there was only a judgment against the corporation neither the judge my client will defendant would have cared if mr city who was finally for personal bankruptcy he still would have had to show up and give testimony about the corporation's assets there clearly was contemplation at that time that he was a personal judgment after the payment of it also purports to require the piece you could have paid his judgment interest in costs if he was a judgment on or i don't know why he would be paying post judgment interesting costs undeniably there was no jurisdiction over mr because there was no service of process where the phone just played argues that the physical appearance in court were amounted to a general jurisdiction and if this case had been filed prior to the year two thousand i would agree with pointers p personal jurisdiction has been significantly narrow and plaintiff has not argued either to the circuit court or here that my client has done anything that is in that limited realm of actions found in the statute in order to you're talking is also distinguishable from others here the defendant had claimed there was no personal jurisdiction although there appeared to be an agreed order and that it offended appealed the case and where you appellant claims that there was an agreement that resulted in this order what we have is a document drafted by the point submitted to the court when my client wasn't there is no evidence it was ever shown to my client and it was entered on that day that there is no record evidence my point was even there thank there have been other cases where you purported agreed order has been challenged and courts have said it's not agreed order if you can't point to the record and show that it really is an agreed order or a consent decree you need to show you the parties party or his attorney signed it was there when it was entered prepared it but something in the record or look at the transcripts that show whether or not it but you need something in the record show there is nothing to pay off the payment order and we cited authority to the circuit court that in order that's based on another void order is also void but plainly the underlying basis for the payment order simply does not exist a fallen teacher he pays those dollars maybe there's a reason for them to be paid but why is this trial court directed th use me i want you affirmatively to order them to repay dollars to me work how does that happen well we did also argue that in the  before that payment order was my client hadn't paid any money and the restaurant had collected and that's all we wanted the rest of the money  said we don't care who it comes from well if you say if you swear in a complaint that you have a contract with a corporate entity you don't go try to enforce that complaint against an individual you ever had a right to a judgment against that person and they were had service  person yet misrepresented to the court they had service of process misrepresented to my client there was default and use that to enforce this order to pay eight hundred dollars a month for all these years so with no underlying judgment debt of mr city to be paid why why should there be any payment or why should he be required to pay a hundred dollars a month towards a judgment that is not valid against and had said on the record it's not the court's job to police all the lawyers we have crowded dockets we can't do a detailed inquiry into every case it's your job to know you have service of process you have service process you don't you don't direction that statue was amended in two thousand this case two thousand two years no issue about beginning to apply after the case that started the legislature essentially with respect to this narrow issue overrule that one  relieved my first point is that he defended to stating that we've waived our arguments that we've made here before the court today in the circuit court we argued that mr sidney who had made his general appearance before the court here already entered his appearance and waived any objection over the jurisdiction of the circuit court to his person the court did not accept our opinion on that matter but we made our the second on the second argument that we made was that there was a payment order and that in re m d a case where there was a statute at the time where grandparents could visit when there was a deceased parent which was subsequently laid over ruled and found unconstitutional  that case where the consent decree was look to me like it was based on that statute they agreed that the father agreed with the grandparents of the time they had a right to visit the minor child he entered into a consent agreement with the parents and that was found to be a good agreement by all the courts involved similarly here we have two parties that entered into a consent agreement and without any evidence jurisdictional argument by failing to timely bring that issue before the court until six years later the pain were still good we don't have any evidence that was presented to the circuit court to say that he relied upon a default judgment being personally entered against him and that plaintiff's helpful at the time as stephanie coontz told him i got a judgment against you you better pay up there wasn't any evidence to show that that  relied on anything as far as if you file judgment against him the next point that i leave mr parr bartolo raised was that there was nothing included in the transcripts as to the record of the proceedings on the day when to appear in court and a green to payments and there was representation before the court and it is a record for the transcripts from the day of may nineteenth two thousand  i believe that's correct date mr speaker appeared they went before the judge counsel i believe stated that judge we've reached an agreement as to all issues and then the court directed counsel later may twenty fourth two thousand and four i believe it was he didn't appear on that day and he didn't sign the order but what he did do is he is a good sign that because he made twenty later was filed and there were various petitions for contempt filed later however usually on those petitions for contempt were filed mr city who would subsequently for all the payments the road and counsel for the plaintiff would accept those