Court Opinion

ID: 9949968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 21:04:42.318898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:34:45.836109
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as
            precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

                                        2024 IL App (3d) 230059-U

                                  Order filed March 12, 2024
      ____________________________________________________________________________
                                            IN THE

                                    APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                             THIRD DISTRICT

                                                    2024

      DURWOOD LARSEN,                                  )      Appeal from the Circuit Court
                                                       )      of the 21st Judicial Circuit,
             Plaintiff-Appellee,                       )      Iroquois County, Illinois.
                                                       )
             v.                                        )      Appeal No. 3-23-0059
                                                       )      Circuit No. 22-SC-128
      LARRY GODBOLD,                                   )
                                                       )      The Honorable
             Defendant-Appellant.                      )      Michael C. Sabol,
                                                       )      Judge, presiding.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

            PRESIDING JUSTICE McDADE delivered the judgment of the court.
            Justices Holdridge and Brennan concurred in the judgment.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                 ORDER

¶1          Held: The circuit court’s order was a consent order that was unassailable on appeal.
                  Appeal dismissed.

¶2          The plaintiff, Durwood Larsen, filed a small-claims action against the defendant, Larry

     Godbold, seeking to recover damages Godbold allegedly caused to property owned by Larsen. On

     the date the case was called for trial, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the claim.

     Godbold subsequently appealed. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

¶3                                          I. BACKGROUND
¶4           In September 2022, Larsen filed a small-claims action against Godbold, alleging that

     Godbold had borrowed Larsen’s utility trailer and damaged it. Larsen alleged that Godbold

     refused to pay for the damage. Godbold countersued, alleging that Larsen owed him for 21 months

     of storage space for the trailer and other items, at a rate of $100 per month.

¶5           Both parties proceeded pro se. Prior to trial, Godbold was allegedly involved in a serious

     accident 1 and could not attend the December 2022 trial date. The trial date was postponed for

     several weeks.

¶6           The circuit court’s minute entries state that the case was called for a hearing on January 6,

     2023, and that “[b]y agreement, judgment to enter against defendant for $2,200.” A timely appeal

     was filed on his behalf by student-attorneys from the University of Illinois College of Law.

¶7           Subsequent to the filing of the notice of appeal, a bystander’s report was filed with this

     court that stated the following regarding the January 2023 hearing:

             “Plaintiff and Defendant both appear as self-represented litigants. Both Plaintiff and

             Defendant agree to speak outside of the courtroom. After reentering the courtroom,

             Plaintiff and Defendant express that they have reached an agreement. They agreed that

             judgment would be entered against Defendant in the amount of $2,200 and that Defendant

             would withdraw his counterclaim against Plaintiff.            Judge Sabol accordingly enters

             judgment in the amount of $2,200 against Defendant, and Defendant agreed to pay on the

             same day.”

             1
               In his brief, Godbold alleges that the “serious accident” resulted in cognitive impairment and
     other related matters, and he cites to the record on appeal to support of those claims. However, there is
     nothing in the record stating anything other than Godbold was in a “serious accident.” For example,
     Godbold claims that “[h]is memory has deteriorated, he has trouble maintaining conversations, and he is
     often confused. CL. 11.” However, page 11 of the common law record merely contains a receipt from
     the circuit court that Larsen received when he filed the case and paid the associated filing fees.
                                                         2
       Documents contained in the record indicate that Godbold did not pay.

¶8                                                II. ANALYSIS

¶9            On appeal, Godbold cites to section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735

       ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2022)) and “asks this court to reconsider, or, in the alternative, reopen proofs

       as to, its ruling based on evidence that was not available at the time of the circuit court’s hearing.”

       He asserts that the “significant mental impairment” he suffered due to his accident prevented him

       from presenting evidence at the hearing in January 2023—evidence that he claims is newly

       discovered because he did not have the cognitive ability to present it at the hearing. He asks not

       that this court reverse the circuit court’s judgment, but rather to afford him an opportunity to

       present evidence, through counsel, at a new hearing on the small-claims complaint.

¶ 10          Initially, we note that Godbold has appealed from a consent order. “A consent order is

       generally regarded as one entered by the court that recites a settlement agreement reached as an

       independent undertaking by the parties, which may supersede pleadings and evidence and limit

       the relief to be granted.” Thompson v. IFA, Inc., 181 Ill. App. 3d 293, 296 (1989). Such orders

       are generally not reviewable. See, e.g., Massell v. Daley, 404 Ill. 479, 483 (1949) (holding that

       “where a decree is entered by consent of the parties no appeal can be perfected therefrom because

       the decree is not a judicial determination of the rights of the parties but merely is a recital of the

       agreement of the parties”). Because the circuit court’s consent order is not a final and appealable

       order under Illinois law, we lack jurisdiction to review it and must dismiss this appeal. See People

       ex rel. Fahner v. Colorado City Lot Owners and Taxpayers Association, 106 Ill. 2d 1, 8 (1985).

¶ 11          Further, even if we had jurisdiction to consider the consent order, it has not been properly

       invoked by Godbold in this case. There are exceptions to the inability to challenge a consent order

       do exist, two of which are the incompetence of one of the parties and newly discovered evidence.

                                                         3
       City of Marseilles v. Radke, 287 Ill. App. 3d 757, 760 (1997). Consent orders can be attacked

       pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code; however, section 2-1401 petitions are not filed with a court

       of review. Rather, they are filed in the circuit court. Price v. Phillip Morris, Inc., 2015 IL 117687,

       ¶ 25 (holding that “[w]hen a petitioner seeks relief from the final judgment of a circuit court under

       section 2-1401, the petition must be filed in the circuit court in which the contested judgment was

       entered and must allege either that the petitioner had a valid claim in the original action (if he was

       an unsuccessful plaintiff) or a valid defense (if he was an unsuccessful defendant)”).

¶ 12                                           III. CONCLUSION

¶ 13          For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal taken from the judgment of the circuit

       court of Iroquois County.

¶ 14          Appeal dismissed.

                                                         4