1

Rule 23 order filed CON SOLIDA TED N O. 5-08-0298 December 4, 2009; Motion to publish gran

ted IN T HE January 19, 2010, corrected February 9, 20 10. AP PEL LA TE C OU RT OF ILLIN OIS FIF TH DIST RICT

______________

_____________________________________________________________ EV A L OV EN E L EA VE LL , d/b/a ) Appeal from the L & L SUP PLY COMP ANY, ) Circui t Court of ) W hi te C ou nt y. Plaintiff-A ppella nt, ) ) v. ) Nos. 01-MR-4, 02-MR-8, 04-MR-4, ) 04-MR-5, & 04-L-2 THE DEP ARTMENT OF ) NATU RAL RESO URCES, ) Honorable ) David K. Frankl and, Defendant-Appell ee. ) Judge, presi ding.

____________________________________________________________________ _______ JUS TIC E S TE WA RT delive red the opin ion o f the c ourt: The plaintiff, Eva Lovene Lea vell , do in g b us in es s a s L & L S up pl y C om pa ny, operate d appr oxim ately 90 o il wells lo cated in C ra w fo rd C ou nt y, Edwards County, Hamilton C ou nt y, Wa yne Co unty, and Wh ite Co unty, Illinois. T he de fend ant, the Ill inois Department of Natural Res ourc es (the De partm ent), is ch arged with the du ty of enforcing the Illino is Oil and Gas Act (the Act) (225 ILCS 725/1 et seq. (West 2000)) and the rul es, r egulat ions, and ord ers p rom ulg ated pur sua nt to the A ct. 22 5 IL CS 725 /3 (W est 2 000 ). This consoli dated appealinvolves appeals f rom judgments in favor of the Department in five separate c ases file d in the Whit e County c ircui t court . Each of the fi ve cases i nvolved oil we lls that ha d been operat ed by Leavel l and that were found t o be abandoned in various administ rati ve hearings . In eac h case, Leave ll r aised co n sti tuti onal and st atutor y i ssues concerni ng the notice that t he Department had given her of the administ rati ve heari ngs that
were conducted t o determi ne whether the we lls w ere a ban don ed. For the following reasons, we af fi rm.2 I. Cause N os. 01-M R-4, 02-M R-8, and 04-M R-5 All the cases i n this consoli dated appealinvolve various administ rative heari ngs that resul tedin a fi nding that t he wells Leavel l operat ed were abandoned for various re asons. The Act requir es oilwells t o be plugged when they are abandoned, and i t gives the Department the powe r t o de te rmi ne wh at constitutes an ab andon ment. 225 ILCS 725/19 (West 2 000). Regulati ons establish ed by the De partm ent are codified in the Ill inois Administr ative Code (the Code ). Section 240.1600 of Ti tle 62 of the Code (62 Il l. Adm. Code §240.1600, amended at 25 Ill. Reg . 9100 -01, eff. July 9, 20 01) d efine s aba ndo ned w ells to inc lude w ells that have not produced f

or more than t

wo years and also well s that are owned by a pe rmitt ee who has failed to pay an a nnu al we ll fee as sessm ent. The Act authori zes the Departmentto conducthearin gs an d to o rder th at we lls be plugged i f they are det ermined t o be abandoned. 225 ILC S 7 25/ 6(1 ) (W est 2 000 ). Se ction 240 .1 610 of T it le 62 o f the Co de ( 62 I ll . Adm. Code §240.1610, amended at 25 Ill . Reg. 9101- 04, eff. July 9, 2001) es tabli shes the rules for administ rati ve hearings involving the det erminat ion of whether wells have be en abandoned and should be plugged. Sect ion 240.1610(b)(1) of Titl e 62 of the Code r equire s the Departmentto give t

he permittee writte n notice of these a dminist rati ve heari ngs through personalservi ce or bycerti fied mailsent t o the permi ttee 's l ast known addres s. 62 Il l. Adm. Code §24 0.161 0(b)(1 ), ame nded at 25 Ill. R eg. 91 02, eff. July 9, 2001. The noti ce must be mailedat le ast 14 day s prior to the sched uled hear ing date . 62 Il l. Adm. Code §24 0.16 10( b)(1 ), am end ed a t 25 Ill. R eg. 9 102 , eff . July 9 , 200 1. On January

31, 2001, t

he Department s entLea vell a notice that it int ended to hol d a heari ng on F ebru ary 14, 20 01, to d eterm ine w hethe r she h ad ab ando ned th e w ell s sh e operate d "due to ces sati on of operati ons for more than two (2) ye ars (24 months). " The Department i dentif

iedthis proceedi ng as "Abandonment #AW-01-030." The noti ce of the hearing bears a ce rti ficat e of servi ce signed by

the Department's legalcounsel that c erti fied3

that the no tice of

th e hea ring had bee n mailed t o Leavell by certi fied mailon January 31, 2001. The post offi ce unsuccess fully atte mpted to deliver the notice of t he hearin g to L eave ll
on three oc casions –February 3, 2001, Februa ry 22, 2001, and Ma rch 1, 200 1. After the third attem pt, the postalservi ce marked the c erti fied mail ing as "unc laimed" and retur ned it t o the De partm ent. The De partm ent the n re-se nt the n otice to Lea vell by r egular mai l on March 16, 2001. Prior

to rece iving th e retu rn receip t for the certified mailin g of the no tice sen t to Lea vell, on F ebru ary 14, 20 01, the De partm ent co ndu cted th e adm inistrativ e hea ring in Abandonment #A W- 01-0 30 to determ ine w hethe r the oil w ells op erated by Leav ell were abandon ed. The ad ministrative hearing was attend ed only by the hearing o fficer and a repres ent ative of th e Department. At the hear ing, t he Department pr oduced the not ice of hearing addr essed to Le avell b ut did n ot pro duce the retu rn r eceipt or other evidence t

hat Le ave ll had rece ived the n otice of th e he arin g. At the hear ing, t

he Department mai ntaine d that Leave ll had a bandoned her oil w ells due to nonpro duction fo r more than two years and due to L eavell's failure to plac e the w ells
on temporary

abandonment st atus. The Department re quested a f inding from the administ rati ve hearin g officer th at the w ells were abandoned and an order directing that

the
we lls be pl ug ge d i n a cc or da nc e w ith th e A ct. Th e D ep ar tm en t p re se nt ed tes tim on y an d evide nce to the he aring o ffice r in support of its posit ion. At t

he conclusi on of the hear ing, the hearin g officer d eclare d the w ells to be aban don ed. O n M arch 1 9, 200 1, th e he aring officer submitt ed proposed fi ndings of fact , conclusions of l aw, and recommendati ons. The hearing offic er's prop osed findin gs inc luded the fo llow ing: "N otice o f this hearing was prop erly served uponEva Lovene Leavell, d/b/a L & L SupplyCompany[,] by mail ing a copy t here of, by

ce rti fi edma i l , t o the l as t kn ownad dr es s o f E vaLov en e L ea ve l l , d/ b/ a L & L SupplyCompany." The di rector of the Department's Office of Mines and Mineral s signed4

a final administ

rati ve decisi on on March 19, 2001, decl aring t he wells t o be abandoned and orderi ng Leavell to plug the wells within 30 days

. The Department sent Leavell a

copy of the fi nal admini strative order by certi fied mailon March 19, 2001. On April 26, 2001, Leavellfile d a complaint for the j udicia l revi ew of the
a dminist rati ve decisi on. In r e Abandonment of Wells Locat ed in Il linoi s by Eva L oven e Lea vell, d/b/a L & L SupplyCompany, Permitt ee #1031, No. 01-M R-4 (Cir. C t. Wh ite Co .) (No. 01 -MR -4). Leavell a llege d in her compl aint that s he did not r eceive t he notic e of the administ rati ve hearing and that s he was unaware that th e h ea rin g w ou ld tak e p lac e. L ea ve ll's complaint

was superceded by

an amended complaint

that a llege d that t

he Department di d not have juri sdict ion to issue the fi nal admini strative de cisi on because Leavel l did not have propernotice of the adm inistrative hearin g and that the in adequa te noti ce of the hearing denied her

due process right

to noti ce and an opport unity to be hear d. On November 3, 2001, t he Department fi leda mo tion to dismis s Leavell 's amended complaint

pursuant to section 2-619 of the Il linoi s Code of CivilProcedure ( 735 ILCS 5/2- 619 (West 2000)) . The Department argu ed in its motion that Leavel l fai led to provide for the issuanc e of a summons within 35 days of the admini strative decisi on, in a ccordance with secti on 3-103 of the I llinois Adminis trative Revi ew Law ( 735 ILCS 5/3-103 (W est 2000)). On February

22, 2002, t

he circ uit cour

t grant ed the Department's motion t o dismis s without ruli ng on L eave ll's due pr oces s argu men t, and L eave ll appe aled th e circu it court's dis missa l. Wh ile t hat

appe al was pe ndi ng, on Marc h 28, 2002, the Department s ent Le avel l another notice of another

administ rati ve heari ng to infor

m her that

the Department int ended to hold an admini strative he aring on Apri l 16, 200 2, to determi ne whether she ha d abandoned the same wells " due to fai lure t o pay FY2002 annual wel l fees. " The Departmentidenti fied this proc eeding as "Abandon ment #AW -02-072." The notice of this hearing bears a certi ficat e of servi ce signed by the Department's legal counsel t hat certifi ed that

the noti ce5

of the hear ing had be en mailed to Leavell by certified mail on March 28, 2002, to her last kno wn add ress . On April 14, 2002, the post office marked t

he cert ifie d lett er conta ining t he notice of the hear ing as "uncl aimed" and re turned i t to t he Department. The Departmentdid not receiv e the re turned , uncla imed notice of h earing until Apri l 22, 2002, after the administ rati ve hearing ha d taken pl ace. The De partm ent re-s ent the notice by first-class mail on April 23, 2002. The administ

rati ve heari ng in Abandonment #AW-02-072 took place on April 16, 2002, an d Le av el l d id

not atte nd t he he ar in g. On April 22, 2002, the Department ent ered a final administrative de cision, finding that the w ells were ab andon ed due to Leav ell's failure to pay t he annual wellfees and ordering Leavellto plug t he wells wit

hin 3 0 d ays from the date of t he d eci si on. On the s ame day, the Department's attor ney s ent Leavel l a copy of the fin al decisio n to her l ast known addres s by c erti fied mail . The post office marked t

he certi fiedmaili ng of the admini strative de cisi on as "uncl aimed" on May 12, 2002, and retur ned it t o the Department. The Department recei ved the uncl aimed certifie d maili ng on May 20, 2002. On May 21, 2002, the Department sent Leave ll a c opyof the admini strative decision by fi rst-cl ass mail to the same address. On June 18, 2002, Leavell f iled a complaint

for the j udicia l revi ew of this second fina l administ rati ve decisio n. In re A band onm ent of We ll s Loc ated i n Ill inois by Eva Lovene Lea vell, d/b /aL & L Supply Company , Permit tee #10 31, N o. 02 -M R-8 (Ci r. Ct . W hite C o.) (No. 02-MR-8). Leavellalle ged in her c omplaint that she again di d not rece ive proper notice of the ad minis trative h earing . Leav ell alle ged that t he Department di d not mailthe noti ce of the hearing until Apri l 29, 2002, seven day s after the dat e of the final administ rati ve decisi on, and did not mai l her a c opy of t he administ

rati ve decis ion unti l May 21, 2002, after the expira tion of

her tim e to ap peal. On July 17, 2002, t

he Department fi led a moti on to dis miss t he complaint

in No. 02-6

MR -8 p u rsuant to secti on 2-619 of the Co de of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2002)). In the motion t o dismis s, t he Department argued, in part, th at Le avell failed to timely file the complaint foradminist rati ve revie w pursuant t o secti on 3-103 of the Administ rati ve Review La w (735 ILCS 5/3-103 ( West 2002)). The Department ar gued that the fi nal administ rati ve decisi on was served on Leavel l when it mai led the decisi on to Leavellby certi fiedmail and t

hat Leavel l had 3 5 days from that day t o file her complai nt for ad mi ni st rative re vi ew. On September 20, 2002, in No. 02-MR-8, the circui t court entere d a finalorderthat granted the Department's motion t o dismis s and di smissed Leavell' s complaint for administ rati ve review w ith pr eju di ce . L ea ve ll d id no t fi le a no tic e o f a pp ea l w ith in 30 da ys after the circuit court en tered this order. The record does not refl ectanyt hing furt her occurring in either No. 01-MR-4 or No. 02-M R-8 until Au gus t 14 , 200 3. On that dat e, i n No. 01-MR-4, this court fi led it s opini on
revers ing the ci rcuit

court' s judgment t

hat dis missedLeavell' s complaint for administ

rati ve review with prejud ice. In re Ab and onm ent of Wells Lo cated in Illinois , 343 Il l. App. 3d 303 (2003). This court no ted that the c ircui t court had not consi dered Leavel l' s clai m that t he Dep art me nt faile d to giv e he r ad equ ate n otice of th e ad min istrati ve h earin g. In re Abandonment of W

ells Lo cated in Illinois , 343 Il l. App. 3d at 308. We concluded t hat the autho rityof the Department to ent er the f ina l a dminist

rati ve decisi on depended on a resol utionof disput ed factualissues concerni ng whetherthe Department had proper ly served notice of th e ad min istrati ve h earin g. In re Ab and onm ent of Wells Lo cated in Illinois , 343 Ill. App. 3d at 308. We remanded that cas e "to t he circ uit cour

t to r esolve t

he factualdisput e and to determi ne whether the Depar tment co mplied wit h the noti ce requi rements and s atis fied due process requirements." In re Abandonment of Wells Located in Illinois , 343 Ill . App. 3d at 308. No. 02-MR-8 was not a part of t he In re A ban don me nt of Wells Lo cated in Illinois7

appeal or decisi on. T wo of the we lls that L eave ll ow ned in Wh ite Co unty, Illinois, an d that th e Departmentfound to be abandoned on Apri l 22, 2002 ( No. 02-MR-8) were kno wn a s the "Albert Schumaker Three" and t he "Albert

Schumaker One." On Octob er 7 , 200 3, the Departmenttransferr ed the ownership of these wel ls t o the Republi c Oil Company, Inc. (Rep ublic Oil Company). On January7, 2004, Leave ll fi led a complaint reques ting t hat the circuit court voi d the tr an sfe r of the we lls. Eva Lov ene L eave ll, d/b/a L & L Sup ply Company v. The D epartmen t of Na tural Resou rces, No. 04 -MR -5 (Cir. C t. Wh ite Co.) (No. 04-M R-5). On September 27, 2004, the parti es appeared i n court in No. 02-M R-8, and the court granted Leavell l eave to fi le an amendedcomplaint . The Department subs equentl y moved to dismis s the amendedcomplaint pursuant to section 2-615 of the C ode of Civil Proce dure (735 ILC S 5/2 -615 (W est 20 04)), m aintain ing th at Lea vell ha d no t pled su fficien t facts to state a cau se of

action . The circuit c ourt gr anted the Department' s motion t o dismis s and gra nted Le ave ll 30 days to file a sec ond am end ed c om plain t. On Sep temb er 22 , 2005 , a repre sentativ e from the Illino is Attorney General' s office sent a letter

to Leavell's at

torney t hat stated t

hat the Department was "w illing to confess judgmentin [No. 01-MR-4 and No. 02-MR-8]." The l ette r stated, "Please draftdocu men ts to eff ect uat e thi s outc ome for our r eview." On September 27, 2005, Leave ll' s att orney sent
a lett er to t

he A tt orney

General' s office a long with " proposed documents " rel ated t o the D ep ar tm en t's "proposed confession of judgmen t." The lett er stated: "I am fo rwa rd in g same to my cli ent for he r approval , but Ibelie ve that these are sub st antia llyapp ro pr iate . Up on my cli en t's approval of

these document s I willinform y ou of same. Pl ease advi se on what if any changes that [ the D epa rtme nt] w oul d re que st." Leavell' s att orney did not hear back from the Attorney Ge neral's o ffice until O ctobe r 11, 2 005 , wh en a re prese ntative from the office to ld1 The co ns ol id at edtria l a ls o i nvo lv edtwo othe r c as es th at we d is cu ss be lo w. 8 Le av ell 's attor

ney t hat the Department had change d it s min d and wa s no lo nger willing to confess jud gm ent. On Octob er 12, 200 5, Leave ll filed a motion in N o. 01-M R-4 an d in No . 02-M R-8 request ing the ci rcuit

court t o enforce the D epartm ent's offer to co nfes s judg men t. Leav ell alle ged that t

he parti es enter ed into a binding s ettl ement agreement that s hould be enfor ced bythe court . At the hearing on Leavell's motions, the ass ist ant Attor ney Generalrepres enting the Department t old the c ourt t hat his lett er to Leavel l' s att orne y was a soli citation for an offerfro m Le avelland that after the Department had consi dered Leavel l' s proposed documents, it re jec ted th em . O n N ov em be r 1 6, 2 00 5, t he cir cu it c ou rt d en ied Le av ell 's motions to en for ce th e alle ged settle me nt. The cou rt hel d that " there was no offe r of sett lementor acc eptan ce de finite w it h respect to mater ial t erms." The court not ed that the
corres pondence by bot

h parti es was couched in t erms of " ' proposed' confessi on and furthe r 'revie w'[ ,] sho win g th at no clea r ag reem ent h ad b een reac hed or c onfirme d." On October 17, 2005, Leavell f iled a second amended complai nt in No. 02- MR -8. On October 25, 2005, Leavell f iled an amended complaint in No. 04-MR-5. The amended complaint

c onsist ed of four counts , and each count alle ged that

the Department had trans ferredthe Albert

Schumaker Three andthe Albert Schumaker One we lls to Re pub lic Oil Company in viol ation of her ownershi p right s. Leav ell request ed the court to voi d the transfer and award her damages. On August 28, 2006, the ci rcuit court conduc ted a consol idate d tri al in No. 01-MR-4, No. 02-MR-8, and No. 04-MR-5. 1 At the tri al, Leavell mai ntaine d that prior t o October 7, 2003, she was the owner of t he Albert Schumaker

Three and the Albe rt Schumake r One wells, perm it numbers 015854 and 010156. On October 7, 2003, the Department t ransfer red the o wn ersh ip o f the se w ells to Re pub lic O il Co mp any in tran sac tion num ber 004 146

.9

Le av ell 's son, S tanle y Leav ell, testified that he lived w ith his m other a t 300 No rth Wa lnut, Carmi, I llinois, and had li ved there with his parents for almost 40 year s. He tes tifi ed that neithe r he norhis par ents r eceived notice of t he administ

rati ve heari ng held on April16, 2002, Abandonment #A W -02 -07 2. According to St anley , the y di d not rece ive the final adm inistr ative decisio n from that hearing until af

ter t heir time to fi le for areview had expired. Stanley

test ifie d that ove r the pr evious 20 y ears, he had been respon sibl e for appr oxim ately 400 wells and had pr eviousl y t esti fied i n f ederal court as an expert witness concerni ng the v alue of le ase s. Ove r the Depart ment's object ion, St anley test ifie d that t

he Albert Schumaker One a nd Three wells were worth approxi mately $350,000 to $400, 000. Stanl ey test ified that t

he wells consistentl y produced seven barrels of oil per day and cost app ro xi ma t ely $14 to $16 per day to operat e. In addition, he beli eved that prior to the trans ferto Re pub lic Oil Company, t here had been per sonal pr operty locat ed at the well si tes
wo rth appr oxim ately $75 ,000, in cludin g pu mp in g un it s, motor s, t ank batt eries , inj ecti on pumps, injec tion l ines, flow lines , and di sposal t ubing. Th e D ep ar tm en t o bj ec ted to St an ley's test imonybecause he had not been discl osed as an opi ni on w itn ess. The circu it court
reser ved a ruling on the Department's object ion unti l the c onclusi on of the evi dence. Stanl eytest ifie d that Leave ll had not been able t o operate her wells since th e Departmentdetermi ned them to be abandoned in the admini str ative p rocee ding held in February of 2001, Abandonment #AW-01-030. Le av ell 's husband, Daniel , te s tifie d that h e had been invo lved in the oil b usine ss in various capacities since 1960. He tes tifi ed that Leave ll's wells in Crawford County pr oduced
an average of 40 bar

rels of oil per day and that t he Albert Schumaker

wells aver aged about 7 barrel s per day . Over the D e partment 's obj ecti on, Danieltest ifie d that t he value of Le av ell 's leases in 2001 was $1.3 mil lion. He valued the l eases at the time of the trial to be appr oxim ately $3 m illion. D aniel tes tified tha t the va lu e of a ll t he equipment on al l of10

Le av ell 's leases was $6.6 mill ion. Agai n, the Department obj ected on t he ground that

Lea vell had not disclosed Daniel as an opinion witness. Daniel test ifie d that Republ ic Oil Company had drilled a ddition al we lls on the A lbert Schumaker lease and was producing 90 bar rels of oil pe r da y . H e testified that L eave ll did not receiv e notic e of th e A band onm ent # AW -01-03 0 administ rati ve proceedi ng or the Abandonment #AW -02-072 administ rati ve proceedi ng. Daniel t esti fied t hat Leavel l never answers the door at t

heir home. Lea vell te st if

ie d that she nev ersi gne d a c erti fi ed ma il car d in connect ion with an administ rati ve hearin g wi th the Department and was never personal ly

served wit

h any documents. She stat ed that if she had r ece ived noti ce of the hear ings, she would have appeared. She test ifie d that she wa s the o wn er and oper ator of the oil w ells at is sue but t hat her son , Sta nley, to ok c are o f the day-to -da y ope ratio ns. At the co nclus ion o f the e viden tiary hearin g, the c ircuit court gr anted the parti es the opp ortun ityto fil e closing briefs . Pri or to f ili ng its closi ng brief, the Department fil ed a motion to strike t

he opiniontes tim on y o f Stanle y and Danie l. I n its motion t o strike, the Departmentstat ed that

one of the i ssues at

the trial was the va luation of the we lls at issue in support of

Leave ll's claim for mone tarydamages. The Department stat ed that Leavell ha d not discl osed Stanl ey or Daniel as an opinion wit ness and had not

discl osed their opini ons prior to the tria l, i n vi olation of the man datory ob ligation s of Illino is Sup reme Co urt R ule 213 (f) (1 77 I ll. 2d R. 2 13( f)). On Nov embe r 6 , 20 06 , th e c irc ui t co ur t en ter ed an or de r g ra nt in g t he D ep ar tm en t's motion to strike St an ley's an d D an iel 's o pi ni on tes tim on y. The circui t court agreed with the Departmentthat L eave ll had not properly discl osed Stanl ey and Dani el as opini on witnesse s and struc k their

opinion t esti mony concer ning the va lue of the leases . The court al so noted that their test imony " was with quest ionable foundati on as no documentat ion was provi ded11

in d isco ver y or at tr ial to sup por t thei r op inio ns." In April of 2007, Leavel l fil ed her trial brief, and in May of 2007, th e De partment fil ed its trial brief. In it s tri al bri ef, the Department ac knowledged that the admini strative hearing that ha d taken pl ace on Februar y 14, 2001 (Abandonment #AW-01-030) "cannot and did not support

the ab an do nm en t st atu s o f L ea ve ll's wells in O ctober 200 3," whe n the A lbert Schumaker wel ls wer e trans fe rr edto Rep ubl ic Oi l C om pa ny. Inst ead, t he Department argued that it trans ferred t

he Albert Schumaker

wells i n reli ance on the finding of abandonmentfor the nonpayment

of fees in t

he Abandonment #AW -02-072 adm inistr ative pro cee din g. The Departmentnoted that the c omplaint for admini strative review of t he Ab an do nm en t #A W02-072 administ

rati ve proc eedin g (No. 02-MR-8) had been dis missed wit h prejudi ce and that Leav ell had n ot time ly appea led fro m tha t final o rder w hen it tra nsfe rred th e A lb er t Schumaker wells. The Department al so argued t hat becaus e the adm inistrative decisio n in Abandonment #AW -02-072 wa s affir med in N o. 02- M R-8 wh en it w as dism issed w ith prejudi ce, the admini strative r eview of t he Abandonment #AW -01-030 admini strative proc eedin g in N o. 01- M R-4 wa s mo ot. On July 23, 2007, the circuit court entere d its judgments in No. 01-MR-4, No. 02- MR8, and No. 04-M R-5. In No. 02-M R-8, the circuit court ruled as foll ows: "The court has consider ed th e p le ad in gs , b ri ef s, ex hi bi ts ad mi tt ed , c as e[ ]l aw, testim ony[ ,] & arguments of counsel . Upon cons ideration of same, the court finds that the issu e raised in the Complaint for Judi cial Review was resolved onSeptember 20, 2002[,] with the court's dismiss al with pr ejudic e of the same. Plai ntiff did not appeal the deci sion–a fi nal appeal able deci sion. The court no longer had j urisdi ction of th e m atter ." In No. 01-M R-4, the circuit court ruled as foll ows: "The court finds that

the is sue of whether Defendant vi olate d due process by12

issuing a Final Admini strative Deci sion i n #AW -01-030 is mo ot. As pointed out by defe ndan t, the Department found the well s to be abandone d in April2002 in #AW-02- 072 for nonpay ment of f ees . P la in ti ff c ommen ced a J udi ci al Revi ew i n [No .] 02- MR8, White Co ., IL[,] on June 18, 20 02[ ,] wh ich w as dism issed w ith preju dic e o n September 20, 2002. Plaintiff chose not t o appeal t

he decisi on. The dism issal w ith prejudi ce was a finalappealabl e order. As such the court had no furthe r jur isdi ction [No.] 02-MR-8 [ sic ] ov er th e m atter and ren der s the issu e in th is ca se m oot ." In No. 04-M R-5, the circuit court ruled as foll ows: "In October 2003, when t he Department t

ransfer red the Schum aker w ells to Repub lic Oil Com pany, the Plaintiff 's wel ls had ( in April2002) been found t o be abandoned in #AW-02-072 for nonpayment of fee s, a nd the admini strative r eview acti on ([No. ] 02-MR-8), chal lenging t he Department' s finalorder i n #AW -02-072, had (in Sept ember 2002) been di smissed wit h prejudi ce and had not been appeale d. The Court finds that t

he Departmentwas justi fiedin it s rel iance upon t he final ity

of the Court' s judgmentin [No.] 02- MR -8 (di smissi ng the adm inistrative review of its 2002 finding t

hat the Pl ainti ff's wells were abandoned) when the Department appr oved Re pub lic O il's req ues t to tra nsfer th e Sc hum ake r w ells. T her efo re, th e Pl ain tif f's requ est for decla ratory judg men t to void the D epartm ent' s t ransfer of the Schuma ke r we ll s t o Re pub li c Oi l C omp an yinOct obe r 2 003 is DENI ED. In additi on to fai ling t o prove any sancti onable conduct

bythe Department, t

he Plaintiff has fail ed to prove damages in any ascert ainabl e amount for *** t he trans fer of th e Sc humaker

wel ls . OnNove mb er 6 , 200 6, the Court i ssued an Order whic h granted the Department's Motion to Strike Opinion Tes timony and found that

'much of D an an d Sta nley

Leavell' s testimony was wit h questi onable foundat ion as no documentati on was provided i n discover y or at trial t o support t

heir opi nions. ' The13

Cou rt finds that the Plaintiff failed to prove any ' verifi able fact s' a s to the amount and value of any oi l production and as t o the condi tion and va l ue of any w ell field equip men t. Therefore, the argument s in the Plaintiff' s Brief r elat ing to any esti mated
or project ed oil production, the val ue of such oilproducti on, the conditi on and value of anyoil production e quipm ent, and all other m atters of opinion or conclus ion[] are rejec ted." On appeal, Leavell r aises severalissues relevant to No. 01- MR -4, No. 02-MR-8, and No. 04-MR-5. The first issue Leave ll r aises is whether the ci rcuit

court er red in denying her
mo tion to en for ce th e D epa rtme nt's se ttlem ent o ffe r in N o. 01 -M R-4 and No . 02- M R-8

. As noted above, on September 22, 2005, a repres entat ive from the Ill inois Attorney G en er al's offic e sen t a letter to Leavell' s att orney that s tate d that t

he Department was "wil ling to con fes s jud gm ent in [N o. 01 -M R-4 and No . 0 2-MR -8]." T he let ter re qu es ted Le av ell 's attor neyto prepar e some proposed document s for the Dep artment's re vi ew . L ea ve ll's attor ney pr eparedthe propos ed documents and se nt them t o the Department in a l ette r that ind icat ed th at

Leave llha d t o approve th e d oc ume nt s and r eque st edth e Atto rn ey Ge neral' s office to "advi se on what if any change s that [ the Department] would reque st. " The Department subs equentl y decl ined the proposed documents and told Leave ll t hatit was no long er w illing to co nfes s judg men t. The circuit court held that ther e was no binding and enforceabl e settlement agr eement reachedbetween the par ties . The court

notedthat t

he corres pondence byboth parties was couched in ter

ms of " 'pr oposed' confessi on and furthe r ' review' [,] s howing that no clear agreementhad be en reache d or con firm ed. " The court he ld that "ther e was no offer of sett lementor accept ance defini te with r espect to materi al terms. " We believe t hat the circuit
cour t ruled c orrectly in d enying L eave ll's motion to enforce th e alleg ed se ttlemen t. A sett lement agr eement is in the nature of acontrac t and is governedby pr incipl es of14

contrac t law

. Solar v. Weinberg , 274 Ill. A pp. 3 d 726, 731 (199 5). Oral agree ments are binding so long as t

here is an offer, an acceptance, and a meet ing of the minds regardi ng the te rms of the agree men t. Lam pe v. O 'Toole , 292 Il l. App. 3d 144, 146 (1997). For a contra ct to be enforceable, the materialterms of the contract mustbe defini te andcerta in. Midland Hotel Cor p. v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp. , 118 I ll. 2d 30 6, 314 (198 7). "[A ] con tract 'is suff iciently defin ite and certain to be e nfo rceab le if the c ourt is enabled fr om the ter ms and provisi ons thereof

, under pr oper rules of constr uction and applic able principle s of eq uity, to ascerta in what the parties have ag re ed to do.' " Midland Hotel Corp. , 118 Il l. 2d at 314 (q uoting Morey v. Hoffman , 12 Il l. 2d 125, 131 (1957)). "An enforceable contrac t mus t include a meetin g of

th e mi nds ormutualas se ntas to th e t erms of the contract." Aca de my Chicago Publisher

s v. Cheever , 144 Il l. 2d 24, 30 (1991). In the pr esent ca se, t he communicati ons between the par ties were p reliminary communicati ons about a " proposed" settlem ent, and no defini te and cer tain a greement was ever entere d into bet

ween the parties. The Departmentcites Martin v. Government Employees Insurance Co. , 206 Ill . App. 3d 1031, 1036-39 (1 99 0) , fo r th e p ro po sit io n t ha t a c on tra ct c ou ld no t b e f or m ed by L ea ve ll's acceptanc e wh en the Department ex pl ici tly re se rv ed th e r ig ht to re vi ew an d a pp ro ve Le av ell 's proposeddocuments. In Martin , the plai ntiff brought a cause of acti on for the br each of an insurance contract against an insu ran ce c om pan y. M artin , 206 Il l. App. 3d at 1032-33. The court held that t her e w as n o co ntra ct be twe en th e pa rties. M artin , 206 Il l. App. 3d at 1033. The plaintiff hadfill ed o ut a form t o recei ve a quote for automobil e insur ance from the insurance com pan y. Martin , 2 06 I ll . Ap p. 3d a t 1 033 . Th e pl ai nt if f s ent th e fo rm to the insurance company, and the i nsurance company then sentthe pla inti ff a quotat ion sheet , an applic ation, and a cover l ette r with i nstruc tions for complet ing the a pplic ation process. Martin , 206 Il l. App. 3d a t 1 034 . Th e pl ai nt if f thenas sum ed t

hat he me t the in surance
co m pa ny's und erw riting req uire me nts. M artin , 206 Il l. App . 3 d a t 1 034 . A pproximat el ytwo15

weeks after

the pla inti ff had sent i n his check and applic ation, his vehi cle was st olen. The insurance company re turned t he check and appl icat ion to t he plai ntiff

and denied cover age. Martin , 206 Il l. App. 3d at 1034-35. The appell ate court held t hat there was no cont

ractua l agree ment between the pl ainti ff and the ins urance company because the insur ance company r eserved t he right to revi ew and approve the appl icat ion mater ials before ext end ing covera g e. M artin , 206 Il l. App. 3d at 1036. Based on the l anguage of the document s, t he cou rt concluded that t he appli cati on fill ed out by

the pla inti ff was a requ est by the p laintiff for the in suran ce co mp any to issue an insurance po lic y. Martin , 206 Il l. App. 3d at 1036-37. The l anguage of the appl icat ion st ated that the insurance company would issue an insurance policy after "final approval." M

artin , 206 Ill . App. 3d at

1037. In the pres ent case , the assis tant Attorney General' s letter

to Leavell' s att orney

stat ed that the Department was "willing to confess judgment i n [No. 01-MR-4 and No. 02- M R-8 ]." This lett er was a reques t for an off er fr om Lea vell; it was anal ogous to the appli cati on
m aterials the ins urance company sent t o the pla inti ff in M artin . The assistan t A ttorne y G en er al's letter

was an inv itatio n t o L ea ve ll to m ak e a n o ff er su bj ec t to th e D ep ar tm en t's "rev iew ." Leavell' s att orney prepared " proposed documents " and sent them to the Attorney G en er al's offic e. Th e D epartm ent, ho we ver, reje cted th e pro pose d do cum ents jus t as the insurance co m pa ny r eje cte d t he pl ain tif f's applic ation in M

artin
. Based on these f acts, the tri al cour t ruled c orrectly in f inding that t here was no enforceabl e settlement agr eement betw een th e D epartm ent an d Le avell. Ne xt, with respe ct to N o. 02- M R-8 , Leav ell argu es on appe al that the circuit co urt ruledincorr ectl y i n determi ning that it l ost j urisdi ction 30 days a fter t he September 20, 2002, dismis sal with prej u dice. Leavell argues that the September 20, 2002, writ ten order that dismis sed the case with prejud ice was n ot a final and a ppealable o rder. Leavell' s argument16

is incor rect. A final judgment i s "a det erminat ion by the court

on the issues presen ted by the pleadi ngs which ascert ains and fi xes absol utely and final ly the rights of the parties in the law suit." Flores v. Dugan , 91 Il l. 2d 108, 112 (1982). The sup reme court has "st ated on many occas ions that a

judgment i s finalif it

determi nes the litigatio n on the m erits so th at, if affirmed, the only

thing r emaining i s to proc eed with the executi on of the j udg me nt." Flores , 91 I ll. 2d at 11 2. In No
. 02

- MR -8, t

he circ uit cour

t dis missed Leavel l' s complaint for admini strative review with prejudice. Il linois Supreme Court Rule 273 states, "Unless the order of dismis sal

*** otherwis e specif

ies, an involunt ary

dismis sal of an a ction, other t han a dismis sal for

lack of juri sdict ion, for

impro per v enue , or for failure to join an indisp ensa ble party , operates as
an adj udi catio n up on t he me ri ts ." 134 Il l. 2d R. 273. Acc or di ng ly, th e c irc ui t co ur t's September20, 2002, order t hat dis missed Leavel l' s acti on with prej udice was an adjudic ation upo n the m erits that a scertain ed an d fixe d abs olutely an d fina llythe rights o f the p arties in the law suit. The S eptemb er 20, 200 2, order w as a final and appealab le order. See Jordan v. C ivil S erv ice C om m'n , 246 Il l. App. 3d 1047, 1049 (1993) (an order dismis sing the case with prejud ice was a final and ap pealable ord er). Since the order

was final and appealabl e, the circ u it court lost juri sdict ion over t

he laws uit 30 days after

September 20, 2002. A tri al court loses j urisdi ction ove r a matt er when (1) 30 days have passed fol lowing the e ntry of a final and appealabl e order conc erning t hat matter and ( 2) du ring tha t time, ne ither pa rty has take n any leg ally prope r actio n to exte nd the 30- day p erio d. Bowersv. Vi llage o f Pala tine , 204 Il l. App. 3d 135, 137 (1990). The sup re me court has held that aft er 30 day s from the dat e that the circuit court enters its final order, the ci rcuit

court l oses jurisdi ctionover the matters resol ved in th at or der

. Mitchell v. Fiat-Allis, Inc. , 15 8 I ll. 2 d 1 43 , 14 9- 50 (1 99 4) . A cc or di ng ly, in the p resen t case, th e circu it17

court ruled cor

rectly i n determi ning in No. 02-MR-8 thatit n o l on ge r h ad ju ris di cti on 30 da ys after Sep tem ber 20, 2 002

. Holwell v. Zenith Electroni cs Corp. , 334 Ill. App. 3d 9 17, 922 (2002) ("After t

he expiration of t

hat 30- day perio d, the trial court lacks the nec essary jurisdiction to amen d, mod ify, or vacate its judgmen t"). Lea vell argues that t

he order di smissi ng the case with prej udice was not a final and appe alable order bec ause the circu it court did not enter a "judgment." Lea vell cites Illinois Supreme C ourt Rule 272 (137 Ill. 2d R. 272), which states as fol lows:

"If at the time of announcing final judgment t he judge requir es the s ubmissi on of a form of written judgment t o be s igned by the jud ge or if a circu it court ru le requir es the prevailing p arty to submit a draft orde r, the clerk shall make a notati on to that e ffect andthe judgment becomes final only when the signed j udgment is fi led. If no su ch sig ned w ritten jud gm ent is to b e fil ed, the judg e or cle rk sha ll forthw ith make a notation of

judgm ent and en ter t h e judgment of r ecord promptly, and the jud gm ent is ente red at the time it is en tered of r eco rd." Lea vell argues t

hatthe ci rcuit

court' s September 20, 2002, order dismissing the case with prej udice was not a writt en judgmentand therefore was not finalwhen it was ente red because the ci rcuit

court di d not ente r a separ ate si gned judgm ent. L eave ll's argum ent is incorr ect. A judgment i s the fi nal determi nationof a court upon matter s submitted to it in an acti on or pro cee din g an d is th e jud icial a ct of the c our t. Tri-G, I

nc. v. Burke, Bosselman & Weaver , 222 Ill. 2d 218 , 256 (200 6). Itis the circ uit cour t' s offici al deci sion with respect to the right s and obli gations of th e pa rties to a law suit. People ex rel . Department

of Pu blic A id

v. Sm ith , 212 Ill. 2d 389, 39 8 (2004 ). In No. 02-MR-8, the Sept ember 20, 2002, order was the judg men t of th e c ircuit court. It was the judicial act of the court up on all the ma tters before it, and th e ord er w as the o fficial d ecision with respe ct to all t he right s and obli gations18

of the p artie s. The orderwas writt en and signed, and it be came final when it was ente red of record. The re is no ru le that req uires th e circu it court to use th e term "judg men t" in order for its decisio ns to b ecom e fina l and a ppea la ble. Ma rti n v. Marks , 80 Il l. App. 3d 915, 919 (1980) (the order dism issin g the pla inti ff's complaint with prej udice was the court' s final written judgm ent unde r Rule 27 2). Lea vell argues t

hat even i f a finaljudgment was ent eredon September 20, 2002, and the ci rc ui t c our

t l os t j ur is di ct io n 30 da y s a ft er th at da te , t he ci rc ui t c our

t wa s, nonetheless, revest ed with jurisdi ction unde r the r evestment doctrine. We disagr ee. The revest

ment doctrin e is an e xcep tion to th e pro positio n of law th at the c ircuit court cannotamend, modify , or vacate a j udgment 30 day s after it is en tered

. People v. Kaeding , 98 Ill . 2d 237, 241 (1983). Revestment is a "na rrow " do ctrin e. Kaeding , 98 Il l. 2d at 240. "In order for

the [re vestment

doctri ne] to apply, the parties must acti vely parti cipat e without object ion in pro ceed ings w hich a re inco nsiste nt with the m erits o f the prio r jud gm ent." Kaeding , 98 Ill . 2d at

241. The rat ionale behindthe reve stmentdoctri ne is t hat the party

that benefit ed from the circuit court 's f inal j udgment waives t

he right to quest ion the j urisdi ction of the c our t by ign orin g th e jud gm ent a nd r etrying the c ase . Ridgely v. Central Pi pe Line Co. , 409 Ill. 46, 50 (195 1); Wilkinsv. Dellenback , 149 Il l. App. 3d 549, 555 (1986) . "[T]he conduct relied upon must be by t he party benefit ing from the dismis sal or der andupon the merits of the caus e operat ing to nul lify the order

of dismis sal ***." Wilkins , 149 Il l. App. 3 d at 555. "Conduct which is inconsi stent with the di smissalorder i s anywhi ch can b e
rea sona bly cons trued a s an in dicatio n that th e partie s do n ot view the ord er as f in al an d binding." Gentilev. Hansen , 131 Ill. A pp. 3 d 25 0, 25 5 (1 984 ). Based on the rec ord before us , we conclude that t he Department' s conduct indicat ed that it bel ieved the September 20, 2002 , or der to be not hing les s than a final and bi nding order.19

In No . 01-M R-4 , on A pril 6, 20 04, the De partm ent file d an ans w er to Le av ell 's complaint

after our remand. In it s answer, t he Departmentinvoked the final orderin No. 02- MR -8 as an affi rmative defense. The Depa rtmen t argue d that e ven if Lea vell pre vailed in No. 01-MR-4, the well s at i ssue would st illbe deter mined t o be ab andoned because t he judici al review in t

he separat e No. 02-MR-8 h ad "been ter minated. " Accordingl y, the Departmentconcluded t hatLeavell' s complaint

in No. 01-MR-4 fail ed to st ate a cl aim upon which reli ef

could be granted. On June 29, 2004, t he Departmentfiled a motion to dismiss Le av ell 's complaint

in No. 01-MR-4, arguing that t he clai m was moot beca use o f the c ircuit court' s finalorder di smissi ng No. 02-MR-8 with prejudi ce. In No. 02- MR- 8, aft er the proce eding had been di smissed wit h prejudi ce on September20, 2002, not hing furt her occurr ed in the proceed ing fo r nearly tw o years u ntil August 19, 2004, when Le ave ll filed a ne w c om plain t for jud icial r evie w. On September 27, 2004, aft er a hearing in court, the ci rcuit court gr anted Leavel l 14 day s to fi le an amended complaint . On October 19, 2004, Leavellfile d her amended complai nt, and on November 4, 200 4, the D epartm ent filed a mo tion to dismis s the amended complaint . The Department arguedin it s motion th at the a men ded c om plaint d id no t state a ca use o f actio n bec ause it contai ned the sam e alleg ations a nd cla im that ha d bee n con tained in the initialcomplaint that had been dism issed m ore tha n tw o years p rior. O n Se ptem ber 1 9, 200 5, the c ircuit co urt granted the Department's motion t o d ismiss but grant ed Leavell 30 days to fil e a second amended comp laint. In additi on, the court gr anted Leavel l "l imit ed discover y. " On October 17, 2 005 , Le ave ll filed her sec ond am end ed c om plain t. The cour t cons olidate d Le avell's fiv e W hite C oun tylaws uits against the Department for one tri al. In the t rialbrief t

hat it submitt ed foll owing the consol idate d tri al, the Departmentarguedthat t he circ uit cour

t did not have juri sdict ion in No. 02-M R-8 because the September 20, 2002, order was a final and appealabl e order. The Department st ated that20

the circuit co urt reins tated N o. 02- M R-8 over its object ion on September 27, 2004, but t

hat the circuit court no lon ger had jurisdiction over the su bject matter. Under these facts, w e c an no t co nc lu de th at t he D ep ar tm en t's conduct was inc onsist ent with the fin ality of the Se ptembe r 20, 2002 , dismissal order. The Department di d not waive
or igno re the p rior jud gm ent bu t ins tead attempted t o use it as a defense to any fur ther proceedi ngs on the is sue of the a bandonment of the we lls in both No. 01- MR -4 and No. 02- M R-8

. Und er these circum stances, the narrow revestmen t doctrine does not apply. "It has been stat ed that

the rationale behind the revest ment doctrine is that the trial court considers the benefitting party to ha ve ign ored the jud gm ent an d started to retry the case ***." People

v. Pri ce , 364 Ill. App. 3d 543, 546 (2006) . The cir cuit c ourt di d not beli eve that the Departmentignored t

he September 20, 2002 , dis missal order, and we ag ree. The rec ord supp orts the ci rcuit

court' s conclus ion that "[w]hil e [the Depart

ment] mayhave had no object ions as to matt ers of pr ocedure, [the D epa rtmen t] neve r surren dered or w aived its content ion that t

he matter was moot by vi rtue of t

he final and appealabl e order. " We believe that t he revest ment doctr ine is not appli cable i n the pres ent case
. Lea vell arg ues a lternatively t hat the pleadings she fil ed in No. 02-M R-8 on A ugust 19, 2004, should be char acter ized as plead ings f iled pu rsuan t to sectio n 2-1 401 of the Illinois Code of CivilProcedure ( 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2004) ). Section 2-1401( a) provi des a statutoryprocedure for

the vacat

ur of a final judgmen t older than 30 day s. 735 I LCS 5/2- 1401(a) (W es t 2 00 4) . T he sta tu te r eq ui re s th at a pe titi on be su pp or ted by an affidavi t or other app rop riate sho win g of ma tters n ot o f rec ord

. Peop le v. Vincen t , 226 Ill. 2d 1, 7 (2007). It fur

ther pr ovi de s t

ha t ape ti ti on m us t b e f

il ednot late r t ha n two years after the entry of the j udgment, excluding the time during which t he person se eking rel ief i s under a l egal disab ilityor du ress or the gro und for re lief is fra udu lently con cea led. Vincent , 226 Il l. 2d at 7. Relief under

secti on 2-1401 is pr edicat ed upon proof, by a preponderance of the evi dence,21

of a meritorious cl aim or defens e in the origi nal act ion andof dili gence in pur suing both the origi nal actio n an d th e se ction 2-1 401 petit ion

. Vincent , 226 Il l. 2d at 7-8 ( citing Smith v. Airoom, Inc. , 114 Ill. 2d 209 (1 986)). The first pleadings filed in N o. 02-M R-8 after the di smissal-with-pre judice order w ere file d byLeavell on August 19, 2004, ne arly

two year s after

the entry of the dism issal order. On that day, Leavell f

iled an unverifi ed com plaint for jud icial revie w a nd h er resp onse to the D ep ar tm en t's affirmat ive defens es. Leavel l did not invoke section 2-1401 anyw here in those pleadings. In addition, t he pleadi ngs do not meet any of t he r equirements f

or a section 2- 1401 petition. The unverifie d pleadi ngs were not suppor tedby any

affidavi ts or ot

hermatters not of rec ord. T he ple ading s filed o n A ugu st 19, 2 004 , did not make the all egati on of due dili gence requir ed for rel ief. See Matter v. Qu esne ll , 133 Il l. App. 3d 388, 389 (1985) (c iting Schmidt v. Si egal Trading Co. , 72 Ill . App. 3d 611 (1979) ). I n additi on, the pleadi ngs did not alle ge facts to establ ish " 'that through no fault or negligen ce of [h er] own an error of fac t or
a valid defense or

clai m was not made to appear to the trial c ourt at the time the chall enged judg men t, ord er[,] or decree was entered.' " Schmidt , 72 Ill . App. 3d at 614 (quoti ng M itchell v. Sei dler , 68 I ll. A pp. 3 d 47 8, 48 2 (1 979 )). The August 19, 2004, pl eadings do not have the feat

ures of a new action t o vacate t he dismis sal order. Inste ad, the pleadi ngs merely rais ed the is sues that hadalrea dy been de cided bythe order

dismis sing No. 02- MR -8 with pr ejudic e. There i s not hing in the r ecord that sugg ests Leave ll asked the trial court to tr eat the pleadi ngs as a section 2-1401 petiti on at the ti me she file d them. I n fact, Leavell ne ver asked t he circ uit cour

t to characte rize t

he August 19, 2004, ple adings as a secti on 2-1401 peti tion until August 21, 2007, thr ee year s after they had been fil ed, when she fil ed a motion t o reconsi der foll owing the ci rcuit court' s ruling that it no longer had s ubject

matter juri sdict ion in t

he case. Un der the circum stance s, the circ uit court did not err in refus ing to characte rize t hose pleadings as a moti on under section 2-1401.22

A cc or di ng ly, we ag ree with the c ircuit court's ruling in No. 02 -MR -8 th at it l ost subject matter jur isdi ction30 da ys a fte r it h ad en ter ed th e o rd er di sm iss in g L ea ve ll's complaint

wit h pr ejud ice. The September20, 2002, order was the final and appeal able orde r of the ci rcuit

court t hat asce rtai ned and fixed abs olutely andfinal ly the ri ghts of

the parties in the lawsuit. The circui t court lost its juri sdict ion to amend, modify, or vacat e the judg men t, andsi nce Lea vel l d idnot fi le a t ime lynotice of appeal fr om the September 20, 2002, dismis sal order, this cou rt also los t jurisdictio n to rev iew th e me rits of tha t judgm ent. We therefore must

affirm t he circ uit cour

t' s judgment in No. 02-MR-8. In herappe al of th e judg men t in N o. 0 1- M R -4 , L ea ve ll c ha lle ng es th e c irc ui t co ur t's determi nation t

hather complai nt for j udicia l revi ew of the finaladminist rati ve order i n the Abandonment #A W- 01-0 30 ad minis trative p rocee ding wa s mo ot. W e agre e w ith the circ uit court that N o. 01-M R-4 is now mo ot bec ause the fin al orde r in N o. 02- M R-8 mad e it impo ssible for the cour t's ruling in N o. 01- M R-4 to hav e any pra ctical effect w ith resp ect to the rights of the parties. As noted above, in the Abandonment #AW-01-030 admini strative proceeding, the Departmentfound that

Leavell ha d abandoned her well s by f ailing to produce t

hem for more than two year s. This finding i s the subj ect matt er in No. 01-MR-4. The trial cou rt initially dismis sed the complaint in No. 01-MR-4, but in 2003, we filed our opinion t

hat reve rsed the circuit cou rt's jud gm ent. In re A ban don me nt of Wells Lo cated in Illinois , 3 43 I ll . A p p. 3d 303 (2003). We remand ed the case "to the circ uit cour t to r esolve t

he factu al dispu te and to determi ne whether the Department compli ed with the notice requir ements and satisfi ed due process requirements." In re A ban don me nt of Wells Lo cated in Illinois , 343 Il l. App. 3d at 308. However, No. 02-MR-8 was not fact ored int o or consi dered in our decisi on. No. 02-MR-8 concerned a diffe rentfi nal ad minis trative o rder in a sep arate administ rati ve proceedi ng–Abandonment #AW -02-072. In that proceedi ng, the Department23

found that L eav ell ha d ab and one d he r w ells for "failur e to p ay FY 200 2 an nua l we ll fee s." Lea ve ll's complaint

for admini strative r eview of the Abandonment #AW-02- 07 2 administ rati ve proceedi ng was dismiss ed with prej udice. The dismiss al order operate s as an adjud ication upo n the m erits (134 Il l. 2d R. 273; Rein v. David A. Noyes & Co. , 172 Il l. 2d 325, 335-36 (1996)) , and as we hold a bove, nei ther t

he ci rcuit

cou rt nor

this court has juri sdict ion to addres s the meri ts of t hat dis missal . The same w ells are the subj ect matt er of both administ

rati ve proceedi ngs–Abandonment #AW-01-030 and Abandonment #AW -02- 072. Acc ordingl y, since t he administ

rati ve decisi on in the Abandonment #AW-02-072 administ rati ve proc eedin g w as affirmed upo n the d ismissa l of L eave ll' s complai nt for administ rati ve re vi ew i n No
. 02-MR-8, the revi ew of the Abandonment #AW-01-030 administ rati ve decisio n in N o. 01- M R-4 is now moot. Even if the ci rcuit

court vac ated the administ rati ve decisi on in Abandonment #AW -01-030, the well s would, nonethel ess, sti ll be consider ed abandoned because of t he Abandonment #AW -02-072 admini strative de cisi on. "Anissue is mootif no act ual controversy

exist s or where event s occur which make it impo ssible for the c ourt to grant ef fectualreli ef. *** The fact that a case is pending on appeal wh en th e ev ents wh ich r end er an issu e m oot occ ur d oes not alter this c onc lusio n." Dixon v. Chicago & Nort h Western Transportation Co. , 151 Ill. 2d 10 8, 11 6 ( 19 92 )

. We agree with the circ uit cou rt that N o. 01- M R-4 prese nts issues that are now mo ot. Th e w ells would sti ll be a

bandoned regar dless of a judgment i n favor of Leavel l in No. 01- MR -4. We nex t a ddr es s Le ave ll ' s appe al of t he f in al ju dgme ntinNo. 04- MR-5. No. 04- MR5 conc erned two of th e wells t hat Leavel l operat ed in White County , Il linoi s, and t hat the Departmenthad found to be abandoned in the Abandonment #AW-02-072 administ rati ve proceedi ng (No. 02-M R-8 ). The se w ells were the Albert Sc hum aker Th ree and the Albert Schumaker One. On October 7, 2003, the Depa rtmen t tr ansferred the ownership of these
we lls to the R epub lic Oil C ompany. Count I of Lea vell's complaint filed in N o. 04-M R-524

soughtan order dec lari ng the tr ansfer of the A lbert Sc hum aker w ells to be void be cause she did not rec eive p rope r notice . In cou nt II of the co mp laint, Le avell re ques ted the cour t to declare the tran sfer v oid b ecau se it was premised on t he adm inistrative findin g that th e w ells
were "abandoned" but

the admini strative f

inding violated her due process rights

. Cou nts III and IV of the co mp laint sou ght co mp ensa tion fo r the tran sfer o f the w ells to R epub lic Oil C om pa ny. As noted abov e, the circ uit cou rt denie d Le avell re lief in N o. 04- M R-5 , in part, because at the time t

he Department t

ransfer red the Albe rt Schumak er wel ls, the well s had been found to be abandoned in Abandonment #AW -02-072 for the nonpay

ment of fees and the administ

rati ve revie w of that fi nding (No. 02-MR-8) had been dismis sed with pr ejudic e and the dism issal ha d no t been timely appealed. The circui t court found that

the Department
was justified in relying o n the finality of the circuit co urt's judg men t in No. 02-MR-8 when the De partm ent ap prov ed R epub lic Oil C om pany's req uest for a transfer of th e Albe rt Schumaker we lls. Since we affirm the circ uit c ourt' s judgment in No. 02-M R-8, we also affirm t he circ uit cour

t' s judgment in No. 04-MR-5. The clai ms in No. 04-MR-5 are based on the same cl aims made in No. 02- MR -8, i.e

. , that Lea vell did not recei ve adeq uate notice of t he Abandonment #AW -02-072 admini strative proceedi ng and, therefore, the admini strative f inding t hat the wells were abandoned violated Le av ell 's due process r igh ts. How ever, the dism issal with prejudice of N o. 02-M R-8 operate d as an a djud ic ation upon t he merit s. 134 I ll. 2d R. 273. It operate d as the final adjudic ationof L eave ll's claim o f a lac k of notic e, and the order was not timel y appea led. A cc or di ng ly, under pri nciple s of res jud icata , Leav ell cou ld not relitig ate her cla im of a lack of notice in a separ ate proc eeding re questi ng the ci rcuit court t o dec lare t

he s ubsequent trans fers voi d and seeking c ompensation. The basic principl es of the doctrine of res jud icata have been sum marized as follows:25 "The doctri ne of res ju dica ta prov ides tha t a fina l judgm ent on the m erits rendered by a cour t of competent

juri sdict ion bars any s ubsequent ac tions between the
sam e partie s or the ir priv ies o n th e sa me cau se o f ac tion . [C itatio ns.] The doctri ne extends not onl y t o w hat w as actu ally decide d in the origina l action [] bu t also to matters which could have been de cided i n that s uit. [Citat ions. ] For the doctri ne of

res judica ta to apply , thr ee requi rements must be met: ( 1) ther e was a finaljudgment
on the merits rende red by a court of com peten t jurisdictio n; (2) th ere w as an identity of cause of act ion; and (3) there was an identity of parties or thei r privies. " Rein , 172 Ill . 2d at 334-35. The first requir ement for res jud icata is met b ecau se the d ismissa l with p rejudic e in No. 02- M R-8 wa s a f

inal j udg me nt o n th e m erits. "Th e doc tr ine prohibits not only those matters which were actual ly litigate d and resol ved in the prior su it[] but als o any matter which might have been raised in that s uit t o defeator sustain the cl aim or demand." Rein , 172 I ll. 2d at 336. The doctri ne of res jud icata applies to consti tutional cl aims ( People v . Bailey , 141 Ill. App. 3d 10 90, 1097 (1986)), and it is as r elevant to the administ rative process as it is to the judicia l ( Osb orne v. Ke lly , 207 Ill. App. 3d 488, 491 (1991)). With r espe ct to t

he second requirement of t he doctrine, the cause of action for t he purposes of res jud icata is defi ned by t he facts that give a plai ntiff a righ t to re lief. Rein, 172 Ill. 2d at 3 38. Inth e p re se ntca se , b oth No . 02-M R-8 and No. 04-MR-5 were based on Leavell' s clai m that she di d not rece ive adequat e notic e of the Abandonment #AW -02-072 administ rati ve proceedi ng that f ound her wells abandoned for her fail ure to pay

the annual
we ll fees. W ith resp ect to th e third re quirem ent, the pa rties in bo th proc eedin gs are identic al. "Sim ply state d, res jud icata prevents a party from taki ng t wo bi te s out o f the s ame app le." Arvia v. Madigan , 209 Il l. 2d 520, 534 (2004). Lea vell ha d the o ppo rtunity to litigate herclaim of a lack of notice when she fil ed her complaint for admi nistrati ve revie w. Once26

30 days passed fr om the date t he ci rcu it cour

t dis missed her

complaint

for admini strative review with prej udice, the circui t court lost subject matter juri sdict ion over t

he clai m, and the dismis sal order oper ated as t he finaladjudic ation on t he merit s that

ascertaine d and fixed abso lutely and fin ally th e right s of the par ties in the l awsuit. Leavell i s precluded from reli tigating issues relating to her clai m of a lack of not ice of t he Abandonment #AW -02-072 administ rati ve proceedi ng under the res judicata doc trine

. The administ

rati ve order fi nding the wel ls t o have been abandonedwas affirmed by the final order of

the ci rcuit

court t hat was entered on Sept ember 20, 2002. At that point, t he Departmentwas justi fiedin relyi ng on the final a dm inistrative decisio n that foun d the w ells abandoned. See Bagnola v. Smit hKline Beecham Clini cal Laboratories , 3 33 I ll . A p p. 3d 711, 717 (2002) (" Both res jud icata and c ollateral e stopp el app lyto administ rati ve decisi ons that are adjudicato ry, judicial, or quasi-judicial in natu re"). Once it was fi nally

determi ned that

the well s were abandoned, Leav ell h ad 30 da ys to plug the w ells. 62 Ill. Adm. C ode §2 40.1610 (c), amended at 25 Ill. Reg . 9104 , eff. Ju ly 9, 2001. Since Leavell di d not pl ug th e w ell s, t he y ha d t o b e p lac ed in to th e D ep ar tm en t's Plugging and Restoration Fund program (the PRF program) and were subject

to the plugging requ ireme nts under that program. 62 Ill . Adm. Code §240.1610(d) , amended at 25 Ill . Reg. 9104, eff. July 9, 2001; 62 Il l. Adm. Code §240.1740, amen ded a t 1 9 Ill . Reg. 11063, eff. July 14, 199 5. Onc e the wel ls wer e p la ce d i n the PRF p ro gr am, th e De partmenthad the autho rityto disp ose o f the w ell equip men t in a co mm ercially re as onabl e manner . 2 25 I LCS 725 /19.6(j) (West 200 6). In additi on, the Department has the sol e discr etion to approve a petition to tr ansfera well in the P RF p rogram whe n it receives a prop er petition for a transfe r. 62 Ill . Adm. Code §240.1465(e) , added at 22 Ill . Reg. 22376, eff. December 14, 1998. A cc or di ng ly, w e a ff

irm th e c irc ui t co ur t's judgment denying Leavellreli ef in No. 04- MR -5. We cann ot dete rmine from the rec ord w hy Lea vell did not appe al the September 20,27

2002, o rder dism is si ng t

he c ompl ai ntfor

admini stra ti ve r evi ew wi thpr ej udi ce in No. 02- MR8. For whatever r eason, s he did not a ppeal, and we are n o w required t o give effect to the final admini stra tive d ecision finding that the wells were abandoned. U nder these circumstances, the D epartm ent pro perly plac ed the we lls into the PR F pro gram and p rope rly trans ferredthe w ells pur suan t to the abov e authori ty the Department has in managing the PR F p rog ram . Since we af

fi rm t he circ ui t court's fin ding that the De partm ent w as justifie d in trans ferri ng the Albert

Schumaker wells pur suant t o the pr ovi si ons of t he P RF pr ogr am, we need not addres s the ci rcuit court' s findi ng that Leave ll fa iled to prove her

damages for the transfer. Lea vell assert s that

the tr ansfer of t

he wells const ituted a "takin g" un der the fifth amendment to the United Stat es Constit ution ( U.S. Const. , amend. V). The fifth amendment of the Unite d States Constit ution, as well as the Il linoi s Constit ution, prohibi ts the taki ng of private prop erty for a p ublic pur pos e w itho ut th e pa ymen t of ju st co mp ens ation . U.S . Co nst., amend. V; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §15. Le avell, how ever, does not devel op this argument or cite any case law a pplying th e takin gs clau se of the fif th am endm ent. See Stenst rom Petrole um Services Group, Inc. v. Mesch , 375 Il l. App. 3d 1077, 1098-99 (2007) ("It is w ell sett ledthat ' [a] revi ewing court i s en tit led t o have iss ues clearly defined wit

h pertinent autho ritycite d a nd co hesiv e arguments pr esented ( [210 Ill . 2d R. 341(h) (7)]) , and i t is not
a reposi tory

into which an app e lla nt m ay f oi st t he bu rd en of

ar gu m en t an d r es ea rc h' " (quoti ng Ob ert v. Sa ville , 253 Ill. App. 3d 677, 682 (1993))). Nonetheless, Le av ell 's arg um ent u nde r the takin gs c laus e is u nco nvi ncin g. The State, pursuant to its inhe rent po lice po we rs, may reg ulate b usine sses fo r th e pro tectio n of the pub lic hea lth, sa fety, an d w elfa re. Pe ople v. Johnson , 68 Ill. 2d 441, 447 (1977). "[A ]n exercise of

police power to prevent a propert

y owner fr om using his propert y so a s to crea te28

a nuisance or

a risk of harm to others is not a ' taking' i n the constitut ional sense." Village of Lake Villa v. Stokovich , 211 Il l. 2d 106, 130 (2004) (citing Lucas v. South Carolina Costal Co uncil , 505 U.S. 1003, 1030, 120 L. Ed. 2d 798 , 822, 112 S . Ct. 2886, 29 01 (199 2)). Permitting an abandoned well to remai n unplugged cre ates a c ontinuing public nui sance. People v. Jones , 329 Ill. A pp . 50 3, 5 07 (1 94 6) . T he D ep ar tm en t's regulations concer ning the PRF program promote t he protec tion of

the publi c healt

h, safety , and welfar e by pr oviding the procedure for

plugging abandoned wells when the owner ha s not ful fill ed her obli gation to plug the w ells or, alternatively , by providi ng the Department with t he abil ity

to approve
a tra nsfer of t

he wells t o another pe rmitt ee. Leavel l did not establ ish t

hat she was entitl ed to com pens ation u nder the tak ings c lause o f the f ifth am endm ent. We affirm the circ uit court' s judgments entere d in No. 01-MR-4, No. 02-MR-8, and No. 04-MR-5. II. Cause N os. 04-M R-4 an d 04-L -2 On January

7, 2004, Leave ll fi led a complaint agai nst the Department (No. 04-M R-4), alle ging that t

he Department plugged the fol lowing wells that s he owned in Crawford, White , Hamilton, and Edwards Counties, Ill inois : Davis- Dart #2, El la M. Smith #2, Lamar #B-2, C. Shew #1, C. Shew #2, Shew #LW -1, Shew #3, and Gera ld Shew #5. Leavellmaintai ned in hercomp laint that the wells w ere plugge d witho ut proper n otice an d the opport unity to be heard. Leave ll r equested the ci rcuit

court t o declar e the sec tion of t he administ

rati ve code
con cern ing the p lug gin g of aba ndo ned we lls to b e un con stitutio nal. On January

9, 2004, Leavellfile d another c omplaint against the Department (No. 04- L-2), al le gi ng t

ha t t he Dep artm en t p lu gge d " th e Sh ew, Dav is [, ] and S mi thwe lls" and th e Lamar #B-2 well without providi ng her with pr oper noti ce and an opport unity to be heard. In additi on to aski ng the ci rcuit court t o declar e that

the plugging had been done in viol ation of her const itutional rights , Leavellalso as ked the ci rcu it cour t for a j udgment agains t the29

D epar tmentin the amount of "$360,000 in damages for the loss of the sur face and sub[]sur face equipment, " plus attor ney fee s and costs. Leavell a lso sought a declar ation t

hat she did not owe the De partment for plugging costs. As noted above, the circuit court conducted a cons olidat ed tri al on August 28, 2006. At the trial, the Department es tabli shed that the well s atissue in No. 04-MR-4 and in No. 04- L-2 had be en plugg ed prior to Janu ary of 2001. The Department present ed evidence t

hat an administ rati ve hearing c oncerning t he abandonment of the wells t ook place on February 10, 2000, that it sen t a notice of that administrative hearing to Leavell by certifi ed mail at her last kno wn address, and that it r eceived a s i gned retur n receipt evide ncing the delive ryof the notice prio r to th e he arin g. In add ition , the Dep artment present ed court r ecords t hat establ ished t

hatLea vell's ow nersh ip in one of the wells at issue, the Ell a M. Smith #2, had bee n ter min ated by an ord er o f the Ha milto n C oun ty circu it cou rt in F ebr uar y 199 3. On July 23, 2007, the circuit court entered it s fin al j ud gm en ts t ha t d en ied Le av ell 's request for rel ief i n both No. 04-MR-4 and No. 04-L-2. The circuit court rul ed as follows:

"1. The Department di d not viol ate the Due Process r equirement s for not ice and opportuni ty

to be hear d at the abandonment hearings precedi ng the plugging of the Plaintiff' s oilwells. The Dav is-Dart #2 , Ell a M. Smith #2, Shew #1, Shew #2, Shew #L W -1, S hew #3[ ,] and Gerald Shew #5 wells were plugged after a heari ng on Februa ry10, 2000, in the admini strative proceedi ng en t i t l ed[' ] Ab an do nm en t #A W00 -0 37 .['] Documents show that t he notic e of heari ng was sent t o Leavell by certi fied mail on January

24, 2000, and an agentof Leavell apparent ly executed t

he receipt of the notice of heari ng, which was admitted into evidence as a busines s reco rd. Th is Cou rt finds t

hat, pursuant

to Leavell v. Dep't of Natural Res. (In re L eave ll) , 343 I ll. App. 3d 3 03, 30 8 (5th Dist. 2003), i f postalrecords confirm L & L received t he notic e that was mailed, then the notice was suffici ent. Moreover, no well s were plugged30

after January 2001, pri or to t

he aban don men t proce eding s in #A W- 01

- 03 0 and#A W02-072 (the r espective subject s of the ad minis trative re view action s in [No .] 01-M R-4 and [No .] 0 2- MR -8). The Plaint iff' s request for decl arator

y j udgment for the avoidance of reim burse men t to the D epartm ent of the plu ggin g cos ts for the Lam ar, She w, Dav is , and S mi thwel ls is DENI ED. 2. The Plaintiff' s int erest in the Ella M. Smith #2 ha d been ter minated by orderof the Hamilt on County Circuit Court in Februar

y 1993. This Court finds that the Pl ai nt if

f pl ead ed c la ims prem ised u pon ow nersh ip of th e Sm ith well w hen there
are indica tions sh e kne w o r shou ld ha ve kno wn that he r int erest had been ter

minated bycourt order. Supreme Court Rule 137 pr ovides t hat both t

he parti es and the att or ne ys have an affir

mative dut

y t o conduct a r easonable inquir y befor e fil ing an acti on, pleadi ng, or ot

her paper [and] to ens ure that fa ctua l allegatio ns are we llgrounded[] and thatthe fa ilure to m ake s uch a n inq uiry could subje ct them to sanctions. However, this Court does not find that Plaintiff' s sworn veri ficat ion of the various complaint s all eging ownership of the Smit h well ri ses to t

he levelof requiring Ru le 13 7 sa nctio ns re latin g to this is sue ." We have revi ewed the recor d of the proceed ings, and the c ircuit court's findings are supporte d by t

he evidence present ed at the tri al. The record s upports t he conclusi on that t

he Departmen t cond ucted an admini strative he aring on Febr uary 10, 2000, at which time the
we lls at is sue in No. 04- MR -4 and No. 04-L-2 were de termine d to be abandoned. The Departmentintr oduced int o evidence t he signed r eturn r eceipt as evidenc e that t

he notice of the February

10, 2000, admini strative he aring had be en sent t o Leavell by certi fied mailon January 24, 2000. Alt

hough Leavell de nied si gning the r eceipt , the circuit court found that
a n agent of Leavel l execut ed the re ceipt for the notice of t

he heari ng. This finding by th e circuit court was not

against the manifes t weight

of the evi dence. See Addison Insur ance Co.31

v. Fay , 232 Il l. 2d 446, 452 (2009) (a reviewing c ourt shoul d overtur n factualfindings only if the y are a gain st the ma nife st w eigh t of th e ev iden ce). The Department' s regul ations requir ed Leavell to annuall y verify her curr ent address. See 62 Ill . Adm. Code §240.1710, amended at 21 Il l. Reg. 7273-74, eff . June 3, 1997. The evidence at the tri al est ablis hed that the Departmen t sentthe notice of the admini strative hearing to Le avell b y certified m ail to her ve rif ied a ddres s: 3 00 S. Walnut, Carmi , IL 62821. The evidence present ed at the tri al furt her est ablis hed that

Leavell residedat thi s address at the time th e D epartm ent sen t the no tice by certif ied m ail, along with he r husband and her son, who were also ac tively i nvolved with t he operat ion of the oil well s. The Department's notice compliedwith the notice re quirement s contained in secti on 240.1610 of Tit le 62 of the Code (62 Ill. Adm. Code §240.1610, amended at 25 Ill . Reg. 9101- 04, eff. July 9, 2001), and the notice wa s reaso nably ca lculated und er all th e ci rc ums tances to appris e Leavell of the administ rati ve proceedi ng. Under the principl es of due proces s, not ice must be reaso nably calcul ated"to ap prise in terested parti es of the pendency of the action and affor d them an opp ortun ityto pres ent the ir obje ction s." Stratton v. Wenona Com munity Unit Dis tri ct No. 1 , 133 Ill . 2d 413, 432 ( 1990). The Depart ment's notice of the Abandonment #AW -00-037 administrati ve proceeding complied w ith stat utory and due process requirements. In addition, Leavel l' s argumentthat t he retur n recei pt was impro perly adm itted into evidence i s not convi ncing. Finik v. De partm ent of E mp loym ent Se curity , 171 I ll. App. 3d 125, 131 (1988) (" [A] maili ng may be prov ed by ev idenc e of a n office c ustom togeth er w ith corrobor ating circumst anc es show ing that the cust om was followed in the parti cular instance"). The circui t court 's f ind ing t hat Leavel l rece ived adequat e notic e and an opp ortun ityto be hear d in the Abandonm ent #AW-00-037 administ rati ve proceedi ng was not againstthe manifes t weight of the evidence, and the ci rcuit court r uledcorrectly

in deny ing Leavell r elie f in No. 04-MR-4 and No. 04-L-2.32

Lea vell arg ues th at rega rdless o f the sig ned c ertified mail re ceipt, the cir cu it c ou rt's judg men t was , none theless , incorre ct bec ause the no tice req uirem ents conta ined in secti on 2 40.1610 of Title 62 o f the Co de (62 Ill. Ad m. Co de §24 0.1610, am ended at 25 Il l. Reg

. 9101-04, eff. July 9, 2001) do not pr ovide suffi cient notice un de rdu e p r oc es s s t an dar ds

. We disagr ee. In Tulsa Professional Collection Servi ces, I

nc. v. Pope , 485 U.S. 478, 490, 99 L. Ed. 2d 5 65, 578 , 108 S. Ct. 1340, 1347 (1988) , the Supreme Court st ated, "We have
r epea tedly recogniz ed that mail ser vice i s an inexpens ive and effi cient mechanism that i s
reaso nably calc ulate d to pro vid e ac tual n otice ." In the pres ent case , the Department se nt the notice of the admini strative he aring by certi fiedmail t o Leavell' s veri fied addr ess as r equired bythe regulations gover ning noti ce. After

recei ving the return r eceipt , the Department had
no reason t o suspect

that Leave ll had not

been n otifi ed. Under these fac ts, the noti ce sati sfied due pr ocess re quirement s. See People ex rel . Devine v. $30,700.00 Unit ed States Currency , 199 Ill . 2d 142, 160- 62 (2002) (a no t ice sent

to the c laimant 's home addr ess by certi fiedmail to apprise her of pending forfeiture proceedings was sufficient to sa tisf y proceduraldue process , even i f she never recei ved the mail ing, a

bsent any

indication t

hat the State mailed the notice to an inc orrect address). With respect

to the Lamar

#B-2 well, the evi dence at t he tri al est ablis hed that the we ll
was a leaki ng well and, theref ore, was t

he subject

of an e merge ncy admi nistrati ve heari ng kno wn as " #LW-94-02." The evidenc e in the record es tabli shed that the Department sent notice of the hearin g in #LW -94-02 o n Febru ary 26, 1994, by certified m ail with a return recei pt that w as sign ed by L eave ll. With re spec t to the E lla M . Smith #2 w ell, the circ uit court correctly

ruled t hat Leave ll was n ot entitled to relief beca use th e H amilto n C oun ty circuit court had terminated her interes t in t hat well in Februar

y 1993. Smith v. Leave ll, No. 92- CH -12 (Ci r. Ct . Ha milto n C o.). Because w e a ff

irm th e c irc ui t co ur t's ju dg m en ts o n t he iss ue of lia bi lity, we need not33

address the circuit

court's r ulings with respect t o damages. III. Leavell' s Motion for Mistrialand Recusal or Mistri al and Disqual ific ation Le av ell 's fi nal argu men t is that the circuit co urt erred in den ying her m otion to disqual ify

Ju dge Dav id

K. Fran kland and to decla re a m istrial. As noted above, on J uly 23, 2007, the ci rcuit

court ent ered judgment s in favor of the Department in eachof Leavell 's f ive lawsuits. Alm ost eig ht months late r, on Apri l 18, 2008, Leavell f iled mot ions i n all f

ive
cases request ing a mistrial and th e rem oval o f Jud ge F rank land. L eave ll reque sted the circuit
cour t to vac ate all the order s that had been enter ed since t he beginning of

the consol idate d trial. Le av ell 's motion al leged that at the time of

the co nsolid ated trial th ere w as a se parate
case pe nd in g a ga in st h er in C ra w fo rd C ou nt y, Ill in oi s– N ye v. Le avell, No. 05 -CH -15 (Cir. Ct. Crawford Co.). That case was a l awsuit br ought agai nst Leavel l for t he cancell ation of
a lease c alle d the Stan tz oil lease. One of Leavell' s primar y defens es in t

hat case was that t

he administ rati ve ord ers in vol ved in N o. 01 -M R-4 and in N o. 0 2-MR-8 prohibit ed her from operating the Stantz lease . Leav ell argued that while t he outcomes of t

he cases were not "inex orab lylinked ," they w ere rela ted. L eave ll alleged in her motionthat J udge Frankland shou ld have recused hi mself or s hould be dis qualif ied from the five White County ca ses because in 1975, priorto going onthe bench, Judge Frankl and had performed titl e work on the Stantz lease for a pri or owner of that lease. On May 29, 2008, Judge Thomas H. Sutton pr esided over a hear ing o n L ea ve ll's motion for a mistrial and fo r the disqualification o f Judge Franklan d. In de nyi ng Le av ell 's motion, Judge Sutton not ed that none of Lea vell's law suits raise d any issu es w ith resp ect to the und erlying oil a nd g as le ase s. In each of t he lawsuit s, t

he Department admi tted t hat Leavell was the right ful owner or per mitt ee of the l eases. Judge Sutt on concluded t hat the
ow nersh ip and title o f the le ases w ere no t at issue b efore Judg e Fra nklan d and that the chain34

of title of the S tantz leas e ha d no thin g to do w ith an y of th e fiv e ca ses. Accordingly , Judge Sutto n den ied L eave ll's motion s to disq ualif y Judg e Fr ank land

. On appeal, Leavel l argues that t he c ircu it cou rt ab use d its d iscre tion in d enyin g he r mo tion s. "W hen reviewing a

tri al judge 's r ecusal de cisi on, we must det ermine whe ther th e decisi on was an abuse of the judge's discret ion." Barth v. State Farm Fire & Casual ty Co. , 228 Ill. 2d 163, 175 (2008) . Pursuant to Rule 63(C) of the I llinois Code of Judi cial Conduct (210 Ill . 2d R. 63(C)) , a j udge is r equired to recuse hi mself where hi s imparti alit y might
reaso nably be questi oned. "This test mandates di squali ficat ion when a rea sonable per son mightquesti on the jud ge's ab ility to rule impartially." Bar th , 228 Ill. 2d at 176. T he Co urt of Ap peals for the S even th Circ uit set fo rth a test for dete rmining an a

ppearance of

pa rtia lity, in Pepsico, Inc. v. McM ill en , 764 F.2d 458, 460 (7th Cir . 19 85): whether an object ive, disi nteres tedobserver

fully informed of

the rel evant fact s would enter tain a signi ficant

doubt that the judg e in qu estion w as imp artial. In the pres ent case , Judge Su tto n d id no t ab us e h is d isc re tio n i n d en yin g L ea ve ll's motion for a m istrial and to disq uali fy Judge Frankl and. At best , the only connecti on that Leavell e stabl ished wit

h the case s was that

Judge Frankland had pr epared adocument that appears in the St antz l ease' s chain of titl e. We agree with Judge Sutton that none of the docu men ts in any of t

he lease s' c hains of

title are disput ed or at i ssue. Leavell ut terly fai led to show that Judge Frankland' s impart iality in any of the cas es invol ved in the present appeal mig ht re aso nab ly be q ues tion ed. CONCLUS ION For th e fore goin g reas ons, w e aff irm the circuit co urt's judg men t.

Affirmed.

CH AP MA N an d W EX STT EN , JJ., concur.CON SOLIDA TED N O. 5-08-0298 IN T HE AP PEL LA TE C OU RT OF ILLIN OIS

FIF TH DIST RICT

___________________________________________________________________________________ EV A L OV EN E L EA VE LL , d/b/a ) Appeal from the L & L SUP PLY COMP ANY, ) Circui t Court of ) W hi te C ou nt y. Plaintiff-A ppella nt, ) ) v. ) Nos. 01-MR-4, 02-MR-8, 04-MR-4, ) 04-MR-5, & 04-L-2 THE DEP ARTMENT OF ) NATU RAL RESO URCES, ) Honorable ) David K. Frankl and, Defendant-Appell ee. ) Judge, presi ding.

___________________________________________________________________________________ Rule 23 Order Filed: December 4, 2009 Motion to Publi sh Granted: January 19, 2010 Opinion Filed : January 19, 2010

___________________________________________________________________________________ Justice s : Honorable B ruce D. Stewart, J.

Honorable Meliss a A. Chapman, J., and Ho nor able Jam es M . W exs tten, J ., Concur

___________________________________________________________________________________ Attorney Thom as G. M aag, W endler La w, P.C ., 900 Hillsboro , Suite 10, Ed wards ville, IL for 62025 Appell ant

___________________________________________________________________________________ Atto rneys Lisa M adiga n, A ttorney G enera l of Illino is, M ichae l A. S codr o, So licitor G enera l, for Ma ryE. Welsh, Assi stant Atto rney G enera l, 100 W est R ando lph S treet, 12 th Floor, Appellee Chicago, I L 60601

___________________________________________________________________________________