Court Opinion

ID: 9892460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 21:05:44.771405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:07:00.506929
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except
            in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

                                         2023 IL App (3d) 230088-U

                                 Order filed October 23, 2023
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                    IN THE

                                    APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                              THIRD DISTRICT

                                                     2023

      ANGELA CAGWIN, f/k/a ANGELA TREND, )         Appeal from the Circuit Court
                                             )     of the 12th Judicial Circuit,
            Plaintiff-Appellant,             )     Will County, Illinois,
                                             )
            v.                               )     Appeal No. 3-23-0088
                                             )     Circuit No. 21-L-959
      ANGELA HENDERSON, HENDERSON            )
      LAW AND MEDIATION, and                 )
      HENDERSON AND MEHTA LAW,               )
                                             )     Honorable
                                             )     John C. Anderson,
            Defendants-Appellees.            )     Judge, Presiding.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

            JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the judgment of the court.
            Justices McDade and Hettel concurred in the judgment.
      __________________________________________________________________________

                                                  ORDER

¶1          Held: This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Appeal dismissed.

¶2          Plaintiff, Angela Trend, now known as Angela Cagwin, filed a complaint against her

     former attorney, Angela Henderson, and the law firms of Henderson Law and Mediation and

     Henderson and Mehta Law, raising negligence and legal malpractice claims relating to their

     representation of plaintiff in postdissolution proceedings. The trial court granted defendants’
     motion to dismiss with prejudice, and plaintiff appeals. For the reasons set forth below, we

     dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

¶3                                            I. BACKGROUND

¶4          On December 10, 2021, plaintiff filed, as a self-represented litigant, a multi-count

     complaint against defendants arising out of their two-month representation of plaintiff in

     postdissolution proceedings. Plaintiff raised the following claims: (1) “NEGLIGENCE

     (BREACHING CONFIDENTIALITY AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE)”; (2)

     “NEGLIGENCE (FAILURE TO REPRESENT AND PROTECT)”; (3) “NEGLIGENCE

     (NOTARY FRAUD)”; AND (4) “NEGLIGENCE (FORGERY).” Plaintiff alleged that, in her

     dissolution proceeding, Henderson filed a motion with a supporting affidavit titled “Affidavit of

     Michael Fuller.” The affidavit purported to be signed by plaintiff, but plaintiff never signed that

     affidavit. Plaintiff alleges that there was a second such affidavit, but she does not allege that the

     affidavit was ever filed or used for any purpose.

¶5          On January 26, 2022, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619 of

     the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2022)), arguing that plaintiff failed

     to allege any actual damages or injury arising out of any use of the affidavits. The motion was

     briefed by both sides, and the trial court heard argument on the motion on April 12, 2022, and

     April 20, 2022.

¶6          Meanwhile, on December 23, 2021 (a few weeks after the complaint in this case was

     filed), plaintiff filed, as a self-represented litigant, a complaint against the attorney who

     represented plaintiff’s former spouse in postdissolution and other proceedings. See Trend v.

     Flynn, et al., No. 21-L-986 (Cir. Ct. Will County) (Flynn). The defendants in the Flynn case also

     moved to dismiss the complaint and sought sanctions. At a March 30, 2022, trial court status

                                                         2
     proceeding, at which plaintiff did not appear, the trial court inquired as to whether the cases

     should be consolidated. Counsel for defendants in both cases responded that the cases were

     distinct. At a July 20, 2022, status hearing, the trial court advised that it would like to

     simultaneously rule on the motions to dismiss in this case and Flynn.

¶7           The trial court issued its written order on July 26, 2022, granting defendants’ motion to

     dismiss with prejudice. In the order, the trial court stated that it had, on its own motion,

     consolidated the case with Flynn. The trial court reasoned that both cases stemmed from

     plaintiff’s dissolution case and that numerous other court cases and filings in various agencies

     were all essentially part of her ongoing dissolution-related litigation.

¶8           As for the complaints in both this case and Flynn, the trial court found that neither

     complied with the requirement in section 2-603 of Code (735 ILCS 5/2-603 (West 2022)) that

     there be a plain and concise statement of the cause of action with each claim stated in a separate

     count and “separately pleaded, designated, and numbered” with “each paragraph containing, as

     nearly as may be, a separate allegation.” The trial court then proceeded to separately analyze the

     two cases, finding in this case that, inter alia, plaintiff was not damaged by the affidavits. The

     trial court reasoned that the “Michael Fuller” affidavit was submitted in support of a motion

     plaintiff won, and there was no allegation that the other affidavit was ever used or filed

     anywhere. Accordingly, the trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed

     plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.

¶9           However, given the trial court’s grant of the defendants’ sanctions motion in Flynn, that

     proceeding continued. Following the defendants’ filing of a supporting fee petition in Flynn, on

     October 19, 2022, plaintiff filed in that case what was titled a “2-1401 Petition Challenge to

     Court’s Ruling,” with the caption “2021 L 986”—the caption of the Flynn proceeding. In the

                                                        3
       petition, plaintiff stated that she “presents this 2-1401 Challenge to the Court’s ruling on Bretz

       Flynn’s 2-615 Mot. To Dismiss and Entry of R. 137 award ***.” In an October 31, 2022, written

       order, the trial court, on its own motion, directed plaintiff to advise as to why the petition should

       not be stricken and explicitly stated that it severed the instant case from Flynn on its own motion.

       While litigation proceeded with various filings in Flynn, culminating in the trial court’s February

       21, 2021, written order resolving the various pending matters, there was no further litigation in

       the case sub judice.

¶ 10          However, plaintiff did not file a notice of appeal in this case until March 7, 2023 (months

       after the trial court’s July 26, 2022, dismissal order), purporting to appeal from, inter alia, the

       trial court February 21, 2023, order in Flynn.

¶ 11                                              II. ANALYSIS

¶ 12          On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in consolidating this case with Flynn.

       She also inexplicably challenges the trial court’s ruling on the section 2-1401 petition in the

       Flynn case, and, in doing so, appears to argue that, here, the trial court improperly dismissed her

       complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff proceeds as a self-represented litigant on appeal.

¶ 13          We note first that defendants did not file an appellees’ brief. However, we may decide the

       merits of the case where, as here, the record is simple and the issues can be easily decided

       without the aid of an appellee’s brief. See Thomas v. Koe, 395 Ill. App. 3d 570, 577 (2009)

       (citing First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976)).

¶ 14          Before we address the merits of the appeal, we have an independent duty to consider our

       jurisdiction. Secura Insurance Co. v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 232 Ill. 2d 209, 213 (2009).

       A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the entry of the final judgment appealed

       from, or, if a timely posttrial motion directed against the judgment is filed, within 30 days after

                                                         4
       the entry of the order disposing of the last such motion. Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(a)(1) (eff. July 1, 2017).

       When a notice of appeal is untimely, we lack jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal. See Dus

       v. Provena St. Mary’s Hospital, 2012 IL App (3d) 091064, ¶ 10.

¶ 15          Here, the trial court entered a written order on July 26, 2022, granting defendants’ motion

       to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. The dismissal was with prejudice and therefore a final order. See

       Fabian v. BGC Holdings, LP, 2014 IL App (1st) 141576, ¶ 12 (a dismissal with prejudice is

       usually considered a final judgment because it denotes that the plaintiff will not be allowed to

       amend the complaint, thereby terminating the litigation). While proceedings continued in Flynn,

       nothing remained pending in this case. Thus, the July 26, 2022, dismissal was a final and

       appealable order, yet plaintiff did not file a notice of appeal until March 7, 2023. Given the

       untimely notice of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

¶ 16          The consolidation of this case with Flynn does not cure the jurisdictional defect. Where

       two cases are consolidated only for convenience and economy, the cases do not merge into a

       single suit but retain their distinct identities. In re Marriage of Sanfratello, 393 Ill. App. 3d 641,

       657 (2009). Accordingly, a final judgment in one of the actions is deemed final and immediately

       appealable. Id. We further note that plaintiff recognized the distinct identity of the cases in the

       filing of her October 19, 2022, section 2-1401 petition, where she included only the caption in

       Flynn and challenged only the dismissal in Flynn.

¶ 17          Moreover, in addition to the distinct identity of the cases throughout these proceedings,

       the trial court affirmatively severed the cases in its October 31, 2022, written order. As set forth

       above, plaintiff did not file her notice of appeal until months later. In sum, plaintiff’s notice of

       appeal in this case was untimely, and there is no basis upon which this court may exercise

       jurisdiction over plaintiff’s appeal.

                                                          5
¶ 18                                   III. CONCLUSION

¶ 19   For the foregoing reasons, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

¶ 20   Appeal dismissed.

                                                6