Court Opinion

ID: 9518997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:07:04.397578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:11.680832
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE HEIPLE, dissenting: I dissent. The order of the court below was entirely proper. Above all else, the doctrine of res judicata is based on the idea that finality in litigation is an end in itself. In plaintiffs citation proceeding, defendant conceded all issues of law and fact necessary to support an order turning all of the farmer’s grain over to plaintiff. As the court below correctly found, plaintiff’s attorney drafted an order which confused bushels for dollars. There is no question that the order was intended as a final resolution of plaintiff’s claims against defendant. Plaintiff’s efforts to avoid the dictates of res judicata are unavailing. Its common law action depends entirely on those matters of fact and law which were the basis of the final order in the citation proceedings. When that order was entered, defendant had the right to pursue its interests in reliance thereon. Alternatively, the judgment might be affirmed based on Supreme Court Rule 277 (87 Ill. 2d R. 277). Although not considered by the trial court, the judgment may be upheld on any basis evident from the record. Rule 277 provides, “If there has been a prior supplementary proceeding with respect to the same judgment against the party, whether he is the judgment debtor or a third party, no further proceeding shall be commenced against him except by leave of court.” While the instant action is not a supplementary proceeding in name, it is functionally identical. Thus, without any reference to res judicata, one can support the actions of the trial court. Plaintiff seeks by indirection that which he cannot pursue directly without leave of court. Judge Dannehl’s order can be read as denying leave of court for what is essentially a supplementary proceeding, even if not captioned as such.