Court Opinion

ID: 9819073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:18:15.18131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:29.099297
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McMORROW specially concurring: I write separately to respond briefly to the concerns raised in the concurring opinions of Justice Fitzgerald and Justice Garman. Both concurring opinions conclude that a motion attacking a void judgment is not properly brought under section 2 — 1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 — 1401 (West 1998)). Paragraph (f) of section 2 — 1401 states: “Nothing contained in this Section affects any existing right to relief from a void order or judgment, or to employ any existing method to procure that relief.” 735 ILCS 5/2— 1401(f) (West 1998). The concurring opinions read paragraph (f) as excluding motions to vacate void judgments from the purview of section 2 — 1401. Both opinions stress that void judgments may be attacked at any time and in any court but then conclude that such a motion may be brought as some type of “freestanding” action. Neither opinion indicates under what statutory provision, rule of court, or common law procedure such a motion may be brought. In my view, paragraph (f) of section 2 — 1401 does nothing more than state that a motion attacking a void judgment need not meet the requirements applied to other post-judgment motions brought under section 2 — 1401. In other words, a post-judgment motion seeking relief on the basis that the judgment is void is not bound by the two-year limitation but, rather, may be brought at any time and does not require allegations of a meritorious defense or a showing of due diligence. Contrary to the views of the concurring justices, I do not interpret paragraph (f) as affirmatively excluding motions to vacate void judgments from being brought under section 2 — 1401. Moreover, I note that section 2 — 1401(a) expressly abolishes the old common law writs and equitable remedies that would have provided the procedural vehicle for attacking a void judgment at common law. As section 2 — 1401(a) states: “Writs of error coram nobis and coram vobis, bills of review and bills in the nature of bills of review are abolished. All relief heretofore obtainable and the grounds for such relief heretofore available, whether by any of the foregoing remedies or otherwise, shall be available in every case, by proceedings hereunder, regardless of the nature of the order or judgment from which relief is sought or of the proceedings in which it was entered.” (Emphasis added.) 735 ILCS 5/2—1401 (West 1998). See also Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 110, par. 2 — 1401, Joint Committee Comments [1955] and Historical & Practice Notes, at 602-10 (Smith-Hurd 1983). I read section 2 — 1401, similar to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. E 60), as replacing traditional collateral proceedings as the proper vehicle for attacking void judgments. See Malone v. Cosentino, 99 Ill. 2d 29, 33 (1983) (final judgments can only be attacked on direct appeal, or in one of the traditional collateral proceedings now defined by statute). Further, although the concurring justices agree on the merits of the case at bar, the justices do not identify the means by which this court exercises appellate jurisdiction. In this case, defendant challenged the extended-term portion of his criminal sentence, claiming the requirements of the extended-term sentencing statute had not been met. The trial court’s ruling, upholding defendant’s sentence against the challenge for voidness, might be viewed as a final and appealable order. In other cases, however, depending upon the underlying basis for the claim of voidness, the judgment entered may, or may not, be a final and appealable order. In this second class of cases, if the motion to vacate a void judgment is not viewed or utilized as a section 2 — 1401 motion, there is no vehicle for finding appellate jurisdiction. While this court might exercise its supervisory authority to gain jurisdiction, the appellate court cannot. See Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 16. In light of these concerns, I believe the better course of action is simply to recognize that a motion for relief from a void judgment may be brought under section 2 — 1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This clarifies the basis of jurisdiction and provides the procedural mechanism for exercising the principle of law with which every member of this court agrees, i.e., that a motion attacking a void judgment may be brought at any time. JUSTICE FREEMAN joins in this special concurrence.