THIRD DIVISION May 7, 2008

No. 1-08- 0140
MARY CARR D’ AGOSTINO and ) Appe al fro m the MARIO D’ AGOSTINO, ) Cir cu it Co ur t o f ) Co o k C o un t y. Plai ntif fs an d Count erdefendants-Appell ants, ) ) v. ) ) MICH AEL W. L YNCH , MICH

IGA N A VENUE ) PAR TNERS, L

LC, a nd M ICHIG AN AVENUE ) PAR TNERS, INC., ) ) Defend ant s and Co unt er plaint iff s, a nd ) No. 98 CH 11007 Th ird -P ar t y Pla int iffs ) ) (Domi ni c Forte, ) ) Th i rd -Pa rty De f en da n t; )

) Eugen e E. Mu rph y , Jr., an d Bry an Cav e, LL P, ) Ho no r ab le

) Al exan der P. Whi

te, Ci tation Responde

nts-A ppel l ees ). ) Judge Presi din g. JU STI CE TH EIS de l

iv ered th e op in i on

of th e c our t: Plaint iff s and co unt er defend ant s Mar y Carr D’Ag os t ino and Mar io D’ Ago st ino ( t he D’Agostinos) appeal from the order o f the ci rcuit cou rt d eny

in g their motion for tur nover against t hird- par t y citat ion r esp ond ent s Eu gene E. Mur phy, Jr ., and B ryan Ca ve, LLP . Mu rp hy and Brya n Cav e have fi led a m ot ion to dis miss thi s appeal for l ack of j urisdi

ction, contendi

ng that t he D’Ag os t inos failed t o t imely app eal fro m the d enial of t ur nove r o rd er . Fo r t he fo llowing
reas ons, w e agree an

d di sm i ss th e app eal

. T his c as e h as be en be fo r e t his c o ur t o n a pp ea l mult iple t imes

. T he fo llo win g is it s s o r did pr oce dura

l h i sto ry . Th

e D ’A gos tin os c om

m en ce d s ui t ag ai n st L yn ch an d h i s r ea l es tate corpo rations, Mi

chi gan A ven ue Partners, LLC, and M

ic hi gan A ven ue Partners, Inc., to enf

orce three promi ssory n

ot es, whi ch m em orial iz ed l oans f

or hundreds of thousan

ds of doll ars they had1-08-0140

2

mad e t o de fend ant s. De fend ant s c o unt er su ed , c laiming t hat t he n o t es we re ac t ua lly par t o f a bro ade r, or al funding a gr eement which t he D’Ag os t inos, ra t her t han de fendant s, ha d br eac hed by not loani ng th em addi tional f und s. Def

en dan ts al so sued Ly

nc h’ s f orme r bu si ne ss p artne

r, Dom ini c Forte, who also ha

ppen ed to be Mari o’s c ousi n, f or brea ch of f i duci ary duty

. On Fo rt e’s mo t ion, t he circ uit co ur t dismissed d efenda nt s’ t hird- par t y complaint . We affirmed t hat dismissal, finding t hat defend ant s had failed t o s at isfy Ill inois’ fact -p leading standard. D’Agosti

no v. Ly nch , No. 1-03-2 786 (2 005) (unpu bl i sh ed order und er Suprem

e Court Rul e 23). The D’Ag os t inos w er e su cce ssful o n summary judg ment in t he r emainder of t he su it. We aff irm ed the grant of sum

ma ry j udgme nt, fi ndi ng that there was no agreem ent to lend m

oney other th an

wh at ha d been m em oria l i zed i n th e prom i ssory notes. D’Agosti

no v. Ly nch , No. 1- 03-27 86 (20 05) (un

pub l i sh ed order und er Suprem

e Court Rul e 23). On Augu st 1 4, 2 003 , th e c i

rcuit court th

us en tere d j udgm

en t in f av or of the D’ A gos tinos
an d aga inst de f en da nts in th e a m oun t of $1, 805 ,65 1. S hor

tl y the rea f ter, the D’ A gos tinos
co mmenced s upp lementa ry pr oc eed ings t o c ollect t he judg ment p ur sua nt t o s ect ion 2 -1 402 of t he Cod e of Ci vi l Proc ed ure (73 5 IL CS 5/2 -14 02 (

W es t 200 6)) . How ever, to da te, th e D ’A gos tinos ha ve be en ab l e to coll ect onl

y a f racti on of the j udgm

en t. The d ay b ef ore h ea ri n g w assch ed

ul ed on th e D ’A gos tin os’ m

oti on to co m pe l Ly n ch to turnover certain proceeds h e had recen

tly received, Ly

nch decl ared personal

ban kruptcy. Ly

nch
ev en tual l y vol unta ril y di sm i ssed the ba nkr uptcy peti tion

. W he n c oll ec ti on p

roceeding s res um

ed , Ly nc h w as he l d i n d i rect cri m ina l con tem pt f or fi li ng a m ot ion f or substitution of j udge i

n wh ic h he cl ai med that Circui

t Cour t Judge Al

exan der Wh i te ha d been bri be d by the D ’A gosti nos a nd th ei r coun sel, wh o he f

urthe r clai m ed we re
me mb ers of an Itali an cri

me sy ndi cate. The motion was

heard by another circui

t cour t judge,1-08-0140

1 Nei ther th e def en dan ts nor F orte are pa

rtie s to thi s appeal

. 3 who found the al

legations to be unsub stantiated and f al se. We recen

tly aff irm ed the contempt order, fin din g that Lyn

ch’s actions cons tituted a t hreat to the adm in is trat ion of

jus tice an

d served to thwart the

D’A gosti nos i n thei r ef f orts to coll

ect the j udgm en t. D’Agosti

no v. Ly nch , No. 1- 06-30 26 (A

pri l 2, 2008 ). Thereaf ter, t he D’A

gostinos i ssued ci

tations to Murphy an

d Brya n Cav e, who had represented Ly

nch for a peri od of tim

e. The D’A

gostinos bel

ie ved that Ly

nch had gi ven them fun ds i n an eff ort to avoi d pay

me nt of the j udgme

nt. Subsequentl

y, the D’ Agostin

os fi led a mot ion t o c omp el Mur phy and B ryan Ca ve t o t ur n ove r t he fund s. O n No vember 7 , 2 007 , t he ci rcuit court denied the m

ot ion, f in din g that although the ci

rcums tances surroundi

ng the f unds and t heir d isburs ement wer e qu est ionable, it co uld no t co mpel t ur nove r be cau se Mu rp hy and Br yan C av e w er e n o lo ng er in p o ss es sio n o f t he fun ds by t he t ime t he D’ Ag o st ino s s o ug ht t he m. On Decem

ber 5, 2007, the D’Agostin os fi led a “Motion to Am

end Mem orandum Deci si on and Judgm

ent.” Therei

n, the D’A

gostinos expl

ai ned that another petition f or t urnover and a peti tion f or rule to show cause agai nst Ly nch stil l rem ai ned pen din g. Therefore, they requested a fi

ndi ng pursuan

t t o Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (210 Ill . 2d R. 304(a)) t hat there was no j ust rea son f

or delay ing e nf orcem en t or appea

l of th e Nov em be r 7, 200 7, order. On De cember 12, 200 7, t he circ uit co ur t gr ant ed t he D’Ag os t inos’ mo t ion t o a mend and entered the Rul

e 304(a) fi

ndi ng. Thereaf

ter, o n Jan

uary 10, 2008, the D’A

gostinos f il ed a notice of a ppea l f rom that order an

d the Novem be r 7, 200 7, order. 1 Mur phy and B ryan Ca ve no w move t o d ismi ss t his app eal. The y cont end t hat t he Novem ber 7, 2007, order was a fi nal order in a section 2-1402 proceedin g and that, therefore, under Rule 304(b)(4), it was im medi ately appeal

abl e without a sp ecial

fi ndi ng. 210 Ill. 2d R. 304(b)(4). We agree.1-08-0140

4

Gen eral l y , appell ate j uri sdi

cti on ex i sts on l y to revi ew f ina l orders. Nic cu m v. Bo t t i, Mari nacci o, Desalvo & Tamel

in g, Ltd. , 18 2 Ill. 2d 6, 7 , 69 4 N. E. 2d 5 62, 563 (19 98) ; Weiss v. Waterhouse Securi

ties, Inc. , 335 Ill . App. 3d 875, 880, 781 N.E. 2d 1105, 1109 (2002). An order is sai d to be f in al i f i t “ ‘ “di sposes o f the righ

ts o f the parties, either upon t he entire contro versy or upon s ome

def ini te and se parate part the reof ,” ’ ” suc h a s a c l ai

m in a ci vi l cas e. In re Es tate of Fren ch , 166 Ill . 2d 95, 101, 651 N.E .2d 1125, 1128 (1995), quot in g Treece v. Shawn

ee Comm uni ty Uni t Schoo l Di

strict No. 84 , 3 9 I ll. 2d 1 36, 139 , 2 33 N .E .2 d 54 9 ( 196 8) , q uo t ing Village o f Niles v. S zcz esny , 13 Il l . 2d 45, 4 8, 147 N .E.2d 371 (1958 ). Supreme Court Rule 304(a) pro vi des that a trial court can m ake a fi nal ord er in a case in volvi ng m ultipl e part ies an

d/or mul tiple cl aim s im medi ately appeal

abl e by entering an ex

press f indi ng that there

i s no ju st reas on f

or delay ing e nf orcem en t or appea

l . 210 Il l . 2d R. 3 04(a); Ba ld as so ne v. Go r ze lan cz yk , 282 Il l . App. 3d 33 0, 334, 6 67 N.E.2 d 639, 642 (19 96). Howe ve r, Rul e 304 (b) m

akes certai n s peci f i c ty pes of f ina l orders that do not di spose of a n enti re proceeding im

media tely appeal abl

e w ithout a sp ecial finding. 2 10 I ll. 2d R . 3 04( b). One o f the t ypes o f or der s t hat is im

mediat ely appe alable wit hou t a sp ecial finding is a final or der in a
sec tion 2-140 2 col

l ection proceedi

ng. 2 10 Il

l . 2d R. 3 04(b )(4). An o r de rin a se ct io n 2

- 14 02 pr o ce ed ing is s aid t o be fina l wh en t he cit at io n p et it io ne ris in a positi on to coll

ect again st the judgm

ent debtor o r a third party, or the ci tation petitioner h

as be en ul tim atel y f orecl osed f rom d oin g so. I n r e E st at e o f Yu cis , No. 2- 06-1225, sli p op. at 9-10 (Febr uar y 26, 2 008 ); In re Marri age of McEl wee , 230 Ill . App. 3d 714, 719, 569 N.E. 2d 1273, 741-42 (1992). Here, t he order in question f

oreclosed the D’A

gostinos f rom coll ectin g the fun ds in q ue st io n fr o m Mu r ph y and Br yan C av e. T he r efo r e, it wa s fina l an d imme dia t ely a pp ea lab le under Rul e 304(b)(4). See Levacc are v . Levacc are , 376 Ill . App. 3d 503, 511, 876 N.E. 2d 280, 28 8 ( 20 07 ) (e

xpl ai n in g that c itati

on ord er s d i re cti n g th i rd -p ar ty f in an ci al in sti tuti on s to l i qu i da te1-08-0140

5

assets owed by

the judgm

ent debtor t o satisf

y the judgm ent were i mm edi ately appeal abl

e under Rule 304(b)(4), even tho ugh section 2-1402 supp lem ental proceedings and a rule to show cause
re mai n ed pe n di n g a ga in st th e j ud gm en t de b tor a t th e ti m e) . B ec au se

th e D ’A gos tin os f ai l ed to fi le a notice of a

ppeal from the Novem

ber 7, 2007 order withi

n 30 day s, this

court is without j uri sdi cti on to revi ew the order. Busey Bank v . Saly

ards , 304 Ill . App. 3d 214, 218, 711 N.E. 2d 10, 14 ( 1999)

. Neve rt heless, t he D’Ag os t inos c laim that t heir D ece mber 5 , 2 007 , “Mo t ion t o Amend Mem oran dum De ci si on a nd Ju dgm en t” w as a p ostj udgm

en t m oti on p urs ua nt to s ec ti on 2 -12 03 of t he Co de o f Civil

Pr oc edu re (7 35 I LCS 5/ 2- 120 3 ( West 200 6) ), which had t he effect of t olling the f ina l i ty a nd a ppea l ab il ity of the turn over j udgm

en t pen di ng i ts di sposi tion . We di sagree. Ordin aril y, j urisdi ction i s conf

erred upon this c ourt by

the fi li ng of a n ot ic e of appeal withi n 30 day s of the en

try of the f

in al judgm ent from whi ch the appeal

is taken. Off

icia l Repo rt s Advance S heet No . 8 ( April 11, 2 007 ), R. 3 03( a)( 1), eff. May 1, 2 007 ; In re A ppl i ca ti on of the County Treasurer , 214 Il l . 2d 253 , 261, 82

4 N.E.2d 614, 61 8 (200 5). Ho we ve r , Su pr eme Co ur t Ru le 3 03 ( a) ( 1) pr o vid es t ha t if a t imely p o st jud gme nt mo t io n is file d, t he n t he t ime in whi ch to fi le a notice of a

ppeal is to ll ed, and the appeal

in g party m ust then f il e a notice of

appeal

“ wi thi n 3 0 da y s a f ter th e e ntr y of the orde r disp osi ng of the l as t pe nd ing pos tj udgm

en t m oti on directed agai

nst that judgm

ent or o rder.” Off

icia l R eport s Adv ance Sh

eet No. 8 (Apri

l 11, 200 7), R. 3 03( a)( 1), eff. May 1, 2 007 ; Appl ic ation of County

Treasurer , 214 Ill . 2d at 261, 824 N.E.2d a t 618. In ord er f or a pos tj ud gm

en t m oti on to h av e th e e f f ec t of tol l in g th e ti m e i n wh i ch to appe al th e j ud gm

en t, th at m oti on m us t b e “di re cte d aga

in st th e j ud gm en t.” Of f i ci al Re por ts Advance S heet No . 8 ( April 11, 2 007 ), R. 3 03( a)( 1), eff. May 1, 2 007 ; Marsh v . Evangel ic al Covenan t Church , 13 8 Ill. 2d 458 , 46 2, 5 63 N .E .2d 459 , 46 2 (1 990 ); Lewi s v . L oy ol a Un iv er si ty1-08-0140

6

Chi cago , 149 Ill . App. 3d 88, 92, 500 N.E. 2d 47, 49 (1986). A motion i s sai d to be di rected against t he j udgment when i t at tacks t he j udgment in

one of the st atut orily

autho rized way s, whi ch i ncl ude by requestin g reheari ng, retrial , modi

fi cation, or vacation of

the judgm

ent. 735 ILCS 5/2 -12 03 ( West 200 6); Marsh , 13 8 Ill. 2d at 461 , 56 3 N. E. 2d at 461 ; Le wis , 149 Ill . App. 3d a t 92, 500 N.E .2d at 4 9. Th

e p arty may al so req ue st “ othe

r re l i ef ” s o l ong astha t m oti on requests a chan

ge i n the reasons un

derly in g the judgm

ent al ong the li

nes of the enum erated f orms of re l i ef

. Marsh , 13 8 Ill. 2d at 462 , 56 3 N. E. 2d at 461 ; Hayes M achiner y Move rs, Inc . v. REO Movers & Van

Li nes, Inc. , 338 Il

l . App. 3d 44 3, 446, 7 88 N.E.2 d 259, 2 61 (20 03). Here, the D’Agostin

o’s “Motion to Am

end Mem orandum Decis ion a

nd Judgm ent” does
no t at t ac k t he jud gme nt o rit s u nd er lying r at io na le b ut , r at he r , ac ce pt s it an d r eq ue st s a Ru le 304(a ) f indi ng. H owev er, a R

ul e 304 (a) f indi ng w as n ot nece ssa

ry be caus e of

Rul e 304 (b)(4 ). 210 Ill. 2d R. 304 (b)( 4); E st at e o f Yu cis , sli p op. at 10 n.2. Theref

ore, it did not have the ef

fect of tol l ing th e tim e i n whi ch to appeal . See, e.g. , Hay es M ach ine ry Move rs , 338 Ill . App. 3d at 445-47, 788 N.E. 2d at 260-62 (holdi ng that motion ac ceptin

g judgm ent but requestin

g fi ndi ngs of f act an d concl usi ons of l aw wa s not directed ag ai ns t the j udgm

en t). We acc ordingl

y di sm i ss th i s appeal f or la ck of j uri sdi cti on. Appeal di sm i ssed. QUINN , P.J., an

d GREI MA N, J., c oncu

r.REPORTER O F DECISI ONS - ILLINOIS APPELLATE CO URT

_________________________________________________________________ MARY CARR D’AGOSTINO and MARIO D’AGOST INO,

Plaintif fs and Counterdef

endants-Appellees,

v. MICHAE L W. LYNCH, MICHIG AN AVENUE PARTNER S, LLC, an d MICHIGA N AVENUE PARTNERS , INC.,

Def endants and Co unterpl aintif fs and Th ir d- Pa rt y P la in ti ffs (Dominic Fort

e, Thir d-Par ty Defend ant; Eugene E. M urphy, Jr., and Bry an Cave, LL P,

Citation Resp onden ts-App ellees).

________________________________________________________________ No. 1- 08-0140 Appellate C ourt of Illinois First Distri ct, Thir d Div ision Fil ed: May 7, 2008

_________________________________________________________________

JUS TIC E TH EIS deliv ered th e opinion of the court. Quinn, P.J., and Greiman , J., concur.

_________________________________________________________________

App eal from th e Circu it Court of Cook C ounty Honorable Alexander P. White , Judge Presi ding

_______________________________________________________________ __ For PLAINTIFF S- Michael A. Braun APP ELLANTS Lee M. Weisz 33 N. Dear

born St. , Sui te 500 Chicago , IL 60602 For CITATION John N. Hourihane, Jr. RESPONDENTS- Murph y & Ho uri hane , LLC APP ELLEES 77 W. Wacker Dr. , Sui te 4800 Chicago , IL 60601