Court Opinion

ID: 9705449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:06:47.355802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:11.492813
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE REINHARD, dissenting: I respectfully dissent and would affirm the judgment of the circuit court. Despite the majority’s strained attempt to find that the trial court had in personam jurisdiction over JoAnn to affect her one-half interest in the property at issue before her generál appearance on November 19, 1985, the record clearly demonstrates that prior to her appearance no complaint requiring relief was ever filed against JoAnn, she was never made a parly defendant to the cause, she was never served with process, she did not participate in the proceedings except as a witness, and she did not request the trial court to exercise its jurisdiction over her by directing the litigation or seeking affirmative relief. Thus, JoAnn could properly attack prior orders entered before her appearance affecting her rights. It is essential to the validity of a judgment that the court have both jurisdiction of the subject matter of the litigation and jurisdiction over the parties. (State Bank v. Thill (1986), 113 Ill. 2d 294, 308.) Absent a general appearance, personal jurisdiction can be acquired only by service of process in the manner directed by statute. (113 Ill. 2d at 308.) Where a court does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, any order it enters against him is void ah initio and subject to direct or collateral attack at any time. (Allied American Insurance Co. v. Mickiewicz (1984), 124 Ill. App. 3d 705, 707.) A judgment void when entered remains void notwithstanding a subsequent general appearance, and a general appearance does not serve to validate retroactively a judgment void when entered. (J. C. Penney Co. v. West (1983), 114 Ill. App. 3d 644, 646.) There is no need to file a special and limited appearance in challenging past jurisdiction unless one wishes to contest the court’s prospective jurisdiction as well. Sullivan v. Bach (1981), 100 Ill. App. 3d 1135, 1141-42. As the trial court did not have in personam jurisdiction over JoAnn until her appearance on November 19, 1985, the prior orders of the court affecting her property interest are void. The judgment below should be affirmed.