Opinion ID: 1160937
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Untimely Vacation Attack Pressed On Certiorari

Text: ¶ 12 Even if the judgment roll were before the court, defendants' attack upon the postdecree orders, based on an alleged facial defect or infirmity, is impermissible and must fail. The claimed defect does not constitute an infirmity that would impair the court's jurisdiction in the garnishment proceedings. [15] The alleged irregularities, if any, would at most constitute legal error, rather than a jurisdiction-vitiating defect. When the authority to deal with a subject does exist, the manner and extent of the power's exercise, even if patently excessive, must stand undisturbed, absent a timely challenge by direct attack. [16] The defect, if any, in the underlying adjudicated indebtedness cannot be challenged except by a timely vacation process to be launched in the foreclosure suit. [17] There is in this record no paper trail of a motion to vacate any of these critical pre-garnishment dispositions for a facially fatal defect or for some other infirmity. ¶ 13 In sum, the foreclosure decree and the three post-decree orders are not open to attack in this case because (a) no vacation proceedings had been brought below that are now sought to be reviewed and (b) there is absolutely no record support for a collateral challenge for facial jurisdictional defects in the nisi prius rulings. Because on this record no facial infirmity in the critical adjudications is apparent, they must stand here impervious to a challenge.