No. 2-- 06--1120 Fil ed: 9-20-07

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ RESURGEN CE FINANCIAL, LLC, ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court ) o f La ke Co un t y. Plai ntif f-A ppel le e, ) ) v. ) No. 05-- AR--2714 ) JO AN KE LL Y, a/ k/ a J o an Le yha ne Ke lly, ) a/k/a Joan Ley

han e, ) ) Defend ant -Ap pellant ) ) Ho no r ab le ( Byr o n Ke lly, a/ k/ a W illia m Byr o n Ke lly, ) Mary S. Schosto k, Def endan t). ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEMc LA

RE N del i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Joan Kel l y (K el l y ) ap pe al s th e tri al cou rt' s den i al of he r m oti on f or attor ne y f ee s u nd er s ec ti on 1( b) of th e Cre di

t Ca rd Li ab i l i ty Ac t (8 15 ILCS 145/ 1(b) (West 200 4)). That sect ion al lows a defend ant to recover fees

when a judg ment is issued in his or her favo r. The t rial co ur t allowe d t he pla int iff, Resu rg ence Financial, LL C, t o w ithd raw its c omplai nt without prejudi

ce, and the parties agree that Resurgence can stil l ref il e the action. On

appea l, Kelly

ar gue s t hat t he initial co mplaint lac ke d a fac t ua l an d le ga l ba sis , en t it ling he rt o fee s u nd er se ct io n 1 ( b)
. We dis miss t he ap pe al. BACK GROUND On Decem ber 30, 2005, Resurgence fi le d a compl

ai nt all eg in g tha t i t wa s a n a ss i gneeof MB NACredit Co mpa

ny and that Kel

ly owed $23,679 in un

pai d charges. On

March 22, 2006,No. 2-- 06--1120

-2-

Resurgence

fi le d an am en de d c om pl ai n t ad di n g B y ron Kel l y , K el l y' s f orm er h us b an d, as a de f en da n t. The co mplaint includ ed s ever al at t achment s indicat ing t hat Resu rg ence ha d purchased the M BNA
ac cou n t. Also at t ac he d w as an affid av it fr o m an o ffice ro f Re su r ge nc e a ve rr ing t ha t it had purchased th e acc oun

t an d th at K el l y owe d th e a moun t al l eg ed i n th e c om pl ai n t. Ke lly mov ed f or sum mar y j udgm en t, a rgui n g th at th e a ttach men ts to th e c om

pl ai n t f ai l ed to sh owthe exi stence of a n agr eement or debt between Kel ly and Res urgence. Af

ter Resurgence f

ai le d to an sw er a

req ue st to adm

i t f ac ts, K el l y f i l ed a m oti on to d ee m ad m i tted th at R esurg en cedi d n ot possess t he fo llo win g: an ap plic at io n by Ke lly f or cr ed i t, re cordsof

ch arge s m ade on th e acc oun

t, chargesl i ps showi ng th at Ke l l y made c ha rges on the acc ount, or a ca

rd member ag re ement between Kelly and M BNA. OnAugust 30 , 20 06 , the tr i al cou rt c on ti n ue d th e m atte r u n ti l Septem b er 20 , 20 06 , to det er mine the status of Byron K

el ly 's b ankruptcy. On

Septembe

r 20, the tr ia

l c ourt gran

ted t he
m oti on to de em f ac ts a dm i tted , but deni ed the motion f or summ ary j udgme

nt, stat in g that an arbi trat ion da te of October 26, 2006, would stand. On Septembe

r 26, 2006, Resurgence fi

le d a m ot ion to dismi

ss wi thout prejudi

ce. On October 4, 2006, the trial

court granted the motion an d Kel ly requested fees

under secti on 1(b). The trial
cou rt de ni ed the moti on f orfees , stating that a judgm ent had n ot been en tere d a nd tha t i t cou l d n ot
awar d fees ba sed on a po ssible fut ur e r esu lt. The court f urthe r noted th at there wasno m otion be f ore it f or s an cti ons un de r Su pre me C ourt R

ule 1 37 ( 155 Il

l . 2d R. 1 37) . The c ourt m

ad e n o f ac tu al fi ndi ngson the me

rits. Kel ly appeal ed the deni

al of her motions for summ

ary j udgment and f

or fees. We deni ed Kel ly 's m ot ion to stay

the appeal

pendi ng the October 5, 2007, expir at ion o f Resu rg ence 's refi li ng period.No. 2-- 06--1120

-3- AN AL YSIS Ke lly as se r t s t ha t t his c o ur t ha s ju r isd ict io n u nd er Su pr eme Co ur t Ru les 30 1 ( 15 5 I ll. 2d R. 301) and 303 (210 Il

l . 2d R. 3 03). T ho se rule s a llo w a n a pp ea l fro m t he en t ry o f a fin al o r de r . Ke lly appe ars t o a ssu me we ha ve jurisdi ction be cause we den ie d her m ot ion to stay

t he ap pea l pending t he
ex pi rationo f the tim

e in whi ch Resurgence can refi le the action. We di sagree, as Kell y does n o t appe al a f i na l order. Sec ti on 2-
- 10 09 ( a) o f t he Co de o f Civ il Pr o ce du r e a llo ws a p laint iff t o vo lun t ar ily dismiss the
ac ti on without prejudi

ce at any tim e bef ore t rial or hearin g begi ns. 735 ILCS 5/2- -1009( a) (West 2004)
. He or she then h

as a r igh t t o r efile wit hin o ne yea ro f t he vo lun t ar y dis miss al. 735 ILCS 5/13- -217 (West 2004); see Kah l e v . Joh n D eere C o. , 104 Il

l . 2d 302 , 305 (1 984). "An order gra nti ng a pl ai nti f f 's motion f or avo lun t ar y dis miss al is 'final and app ealable by t he def endan ts.' " Val dovin

os v. Luna-Man

al ac Medi cal Center, Ltd. , 307 Ill . App. 3d 528, 535 (1999 ), quo t ing Ka hle , 104 Ill . 2d at 307. Bu t , be ca us e ju r isd ict io n in t he ap pe llat e c o ur t is general ly li mi ted to appe al s f

rom f i na l j udgm en ts, the power to address a def endan t's appeal from a vol untary dism

is sal "does not f

orm the j urisd i cti ona l basis f rom wh i ch we may also a dd re ss th e s ub sta n ti v e m eri ts of other nonf in al ordersent er ed by a t ria l co ur t pr io r t o t he g ra nt ing o f a voluntary di smi

ssal." Val dov

i nos , 307 Ill . App. 3d at 537; see Saddle Sign s, Inc. v. Adri

an , 272 Il l . Ap p. 3d 13 2, 135- 40 (19 95). "A judg ment i s f

i na l i f i t de term i ne s th e l i ti ga ti on on t he merit s so t hat , if affirmed, not hing
re mainsfor the t rial

cour t t o do but t o pr oceed with its execution." Big Sk y Excava t ing, I nc. v. I llino is Be l l

Tel ep hon e C o. , 217 Il

l . 2d 221 , 233 (2 005). "When an order leaves a cause st ill pend ing and undecided, i

t is not a fin

al order." Austi

n's Rack, Inc. v. Gor don & Gli ckson, P. C. , 14 5 I ll. App.No. 2-- 06--1120

-4-

3d 500, 502 (1986). Acco r di ng ly, the den i al of a motion f or sum mary j udgm en t is not f i na l
. De Bo use v. B ayer AG , 373 Il l . Ap p. 3d 77 4, 783 ( 2007)
. It i s tr ue th at a n a ppea l f rom a f i na l j udgm en t draws i nto i ssue al

l prev i ous i nterl ocutory ordersthat produced th

e f i na l j udgm en t. Val dov i nos , 307 Ill. App. 3d at 538. But such o rders must
con sti tute pr oce du ra l ste psi n th e p rogre ss i on

l eadi n g to th e en

try of th e f i n al j udgm en t. Val dov i nos , 307 Ill . App. 3d at 538. The de n i al of su m mary j udg men t i s n ot a p roce dur

al ste p to a n or de r of vol unta ry di sm i ssa l
. Val dov i nos , 3 07 I ll. App. 3d a t 538 . T hus, t he den i al he re was nei

ther a fi nal judgm ent nor a procedural step to a fin al judgm ent, and i t is n ot appeal abl

e. Ke lly als o ap pe als the order denyi ng he r motion f or fees. However, that order al so was not fina l. The

tria l courtdid n

ot fi nal ly determi ne that Kel

ly was not entitl ed to fees. Instead, it rul ed th at, because

there had b een n

o fi nal det er minatio n of t he merit s o f the co mplaint, Kelly 's motion was premature. Se e In re Chi le a n D. , 30 4 Il

l . A pp. 3d 5 80, 585 (19 99) (v ol un tary di sm i ss al i s n ot judg ment on me

rits). In ef fect, hav in g dis mi ssed Res urgen ce' s com pl ai nt wi thout prej udice, th e court deni ed Kel ly 's m ot ion f or fees wi thout prejudi

ce. Thus, that order al so is n ot appeal abl

e. In her bri efs , Kel

ly in cl udes argum

ents that she is enti

tled to Rule 137 san

ctions (155 Il

l. 2d R. 137). Ho weve r, as t he t rial co ur t not ed, she d id no t move fo r t hos e sa nct ions be lo w . Ac co r di ng ly, no order den y i ng R ul e 137 san

cti ons e xists to sup

port this appeal . See Pe nn v . Ge r ig , 334 Ill . App. 3d 345, 353 (2002) (Rule 137 i ssue"was n ever l iti gated or r ule d upon and a final and ap pe ala ble or der was neve r ent ere d") ; cf. Gre en ga rd v . Coop er , 78 Ill . App. 2d 86, 89-90 (1966) (af f i rm i ng tri al court's den i al of def endan t's m otion f or san cti ons f oll owi ng v olu ntary non sui t). CONCLUSIONNo. 2-- 06--1120

-5-

As nei ther o rder o n appeal is fi

nal , we dism

iss this ap pe al

f rom th e no nfinal ord er s o f the cir cu it co ur t o f La ke Co un t y. Appeal dis mi ssed. GILL ERA N JO HNSO

N an d ZEN OFF , JJ., c oncu

r.