Court Opinion

ID: 9382434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-27 18:03:29.428562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:39.499058
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 220650-U
                                                 No. 1-22-0650
                                           Order filed March 27, 2023
                                                                                            First Division

     NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in
     limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
     ______________________________________________________________________________
                                                    IN THE
                                     APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                               FIRST DISTRICT
     ______________________________________________________________________________
                                                                     )   Appeal from the
     KIMBERLY PACE-ARQUILLA                                          )   Circuit Court of
                                                                     )   Cook County.
              Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                                                     )
     v.                                                              )   No. 21 L 7417
                                                                     )
     VENANZIO ARQUILLA,                                              )   Honorable
                                                                     )   Thomas More Donnelly,
              Defendant-Appellee.                                    )   Judge, presiding.

              JUSTICE HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court.
              Justices Pucinski and Coghlan concurred in the judgment.

                                                   ORDER

¶1           Held: Affirming trial court order dismissing complaint under the collateral attack doctrine
                   and denying leave to amend complaint.

¶2           When Kimberly Pace-Arquilla and her husband, Venanzio Arquilla, were divorcing, they

          submitted some issues to arbitration. The trial court incorporated the final arbitration award,

          which included maintenance for Kimberly, into its judgment for dissolution of marriage.

          Almost two years later, Kimberly sued Venanzio for fraud, alleging he provided false
     1-22-0650

        information about his income to the arbitrator, which resulted in a lower maintenance award.

        Kimberly asked for damages equal to the amount of maintenance the arbitrator would have

        awarded with accurate income information. Venanzio moved to dismiss Kimberly’s complaint

        arguing it was barred by the collateral attack doctrine. The trial court agreed and dismissed the

        complaint. The court also held that Kimberly could not amend her complaint because the

        dismissal constituted a final adjudication on the merits.

¶3         Kimberly contends (i) the collateral attack doctrine does not apply when, as here, the

        arbitration preceded entry of the final judgment; and (ii) the trial court erred in denying her

        leave to amend her complaint. We agree that the collateral attack doctrine bars Kimberly’s

        complaint, and she is not entitled to amend it.

¶4         In her reply brief, Kimberly asserts that if the collateral attack doctrine applies, she is left

        without access to legally redress a fraud committed during the arbitration process. Not so. She

        could have brought a petition to vacate the award under section 12 of the Illinois Arbitration

        Act, which provides relief from final orders and judgments predicated on fraud in procuring

        the arbitration award. (710 ILCS 5/12) (West 2020)). “[A] judgment or order is void *** where

        the judgment or order is procured by fraud.” Juszczyk v. Flores, 334 Ill. App. 3d 122, 125

        (2002). Moreover, she could have sought to vacate the judgment under section 2-1401 of the

        Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2020)) or returned to the court that entered

        the judgment for dissolution of marriage, which has continuing jurisdiction over the arbitration

        award and disputes involving maintenance. We decide the case as it was litigated and presented

        to us, dealing with what happened rather than with what should have happened.

¶5                                              Background

                                                    -2-
     1-22-0650

¶6         Kimberly Pace-Arquilla and Venanzio Arquilla were married in 1997. In July 2015,

        Kimberly filed for dissolution of marriage. Kimberly and Venanzio agreed to binding

        arbitration to resolve some issues. Venanzio provided the arbitrator information about his 2019

        income as a basis for determining Kimberly’s spousal maintenance award. On October 15,

        2019, the trial court incorporated the final arbitration award into the judgment for dissolution

        of marriage.

¶7         About one-and-a-half years later, Kimberly filed a complaint against Venanzio for fraud in

        the arbitration proceedings. She alleged he (i) provided false and misleading information about

        his income, which was significantly higher than the estimate he gave the arbitrator, (ii) knew

        as early as June 2019 that he had underestimated his income, and (iii) made no effort to correct

        the misleading information on which Kimberly and the arbitrator relied. Kimberly asked for

        damages equal to the “proper maintenance amount had the arbitrator been provided accurate

        income information” but not less than $50,000.

¶8         Venanzio filed a combined motion to dismiss under section 2-619.1 of the Code of Civil

        Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2020)), asserting the complaint (i) served as an

        improper collateral attack on the judgment for dissolution of marriage; (ii) had been untimely

        filed; (iii) pled a cause of action, false testimony, not recognized in Illinois; and (iv) failed to

        state a cause of action for fraud.

¶9         Regarding the collateral attack argument, Kimberly contended she was not seeking to

        modify the dissolution of marriage judgment. Instead, she asserted new claims based on

        Venanzio’s misrepresentations during the arbitration. Kimberly also argued that the “unique

        procedural history and statutory schemes that underpin arbitration” support adjudicating her

        complaint.

                                                     -3-
       1-22-0650

¶ 10         The trial court granted Venanzio’s motion to dismiss, finding the claims barred by the

          collateral attack doctrine. The trial court concluded that although Kimberly “formally

          disclaims” attempting to modify the maintenance award, “in substance, it can be nothing else.”

¶ 11         Kimberly filed a motion to reconsider, asking for dismissal without prejudice and with

          leave to amend. In denying the motion, the trial court clarified that the motion to dismiss was

          an involuntary dismissal, precluding amendments to the complaint.

¶ 12                                               Analysis

¶ 13         Kimberly argues the trial court erred in applying the collateral attack doctrine.

          Additionally, she argues the trial court erred in refusing to allow her to amend.

¶ 14                                          Standard of Review

¶ 15         The trial court dismissed Kimberly’s complaint with prejudice under section 2-619 of the

          Code, determining a section 2-615 analysis as unnecessary. We review a grant of a motion to

          dismiss under either section 2-615 or section 2-619 de novo and may affirm on any basis in the

          record. Kean v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 235 Ill. 2d 351, 361 (2009).

¶ 16         A section 2-619(a)(9) motion to dismiss admits the legal sufficiency of the complaint along

          with all well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences but asserts affirmative matter outside the

          complaint to avoid or defeat the action. Reynolds v. Jimmy John’s Enterprises, LLC, 2013 IL

          App (4th) 120139, ¶ 30. Courts construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the

          nonmoving party and grant the motion only if the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling

          recovery. Ferguson v. City of Chicago, 213 Ill. 2d 94, 96-97 (2004).

¶ 17                                      Collateral Attack Doctrine

¶ 18         A collateral attack on a judgment seeks to vacate that judgment in a proceeding other than

          the original trial court. See Village of Vernon Hills v. Heelan, 2014 IL App (2d) 130823, ¶ 29.

                                                      -4-
       1-22-0650

          In describing the well-established collateral attack doctrine, our supreme court explained that

          a judgment is not open to contradiction or impeachment in a collateral proceeding once a court

          of competent jurisdiction renders it. Malone v. Cosentino, 99 Ill. 2d 29, 32 (1983).

¶ 19         Kimberly contends that the collateral attack doctrine does not apply because her complaint

          presents an “unusual situation,” namely, allegations that Venanzio engaged in fraud while

          arbitrating a maintenance award that then became part of a final judgment. While fraud during

          arbitration may be unusual, arbitrating issues that result in a final judgment is common.

¶ 20         The collateral attack doctrine may be invoked whenever an action seeks to avoid the effect

          of an adjudication in the wrong forum. Apollo Real Estate Investment Fund IV, LP v. Gelber,

          403 Ill. App. 3d 179, 189 (2010) (“Under the collateral attack doctrine, a final judgment

          rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction may only be challenged through direct appeal or

          procedure allowed by statute and remains binding on the parties until it is reversed through

          such a proceeding”). Kimberly’s prayer for relief would modify the judgment for dissolution

          of marriage.

¶ 21         Construing the allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to Kimberly, no set

          of facts can be proven that would avoid application of the collateral attack doctrine.

¶ 22                                    Alternative Avenues for Relief

¶ 23         Kimberly argues that the dismissal denied her the ability to challenge Venanzio’s allegedly

          fraudulent conduct. But, as noted, section 12 of the Illinois Arbitration Act provides relief from

          final orders and judgments predicated on fraud in procuring the arbitration award (710 ILCS

          5/12) (West 2020)). Kimberly asserts she did not seek relief under the Arbitration Act based

          on Hough v. Osswald, 198 Ill. App. 3d 1056, 1057-59 (1990). There, this court held that section

                                                      -5-
       1-22-0650

          12 applies only to an arbitrator’s fraud, not a party’s. Nevertheless, Kimberly could have

          argued that the plain language of section 12 refers to fraudulent conduct by a party.

¶ 24         Or, Kimberly could have filed a petition under section 2-1401 of the Code to vacate the

          judgment. A section 2-1401 petition brings facts to the circuit court’s attention, which, had

          they been known at that time, would have precluded entry of judgment. Paul v. Gerald

          Adelman & Associates, Ltd., 223 Ill. 2d 85, 94 (2006). Section 2-1401 provides that petitions

          to vacate be filed within two years after the entry of the order or judgment. 735 ILCS 5/2-

          1401(c) (West 2020). Kimberly discovered the alleged fraud within two years of the judgment.

¶ 25         According to Kimberly, section 2-1401 would have been ineffective based on City of

          Chicago v. Chicago Loop Parking LLC, 2014 IL App (1st) 133020. But, Kimberly did not cite

          Chicago Loop in the trial court, or argue to vacate or modify the maintenance award under

          section 2-1401. An issue not presented to or considered by the trial court cannot be raised for

          the first time on appeal. Jameson Real Estate, LLC v. Ahmed, 2018 IL App (1st) 171534, ¶ 75.

¶ 26         Even if Kimberly had not waived this argument, Chicago Loop is distinguishable. Chicago

          Loop involved a lease dispute between the City and CLP, the owner and operator of a parking

          garage. The City conceded liability but disagreed on the amount it owed in damages. As agreed

          in the lease, the parties proceeded to binding arbitration on damages. Five months after entry

          of the arbitration award, the City petitioned the circuit court to vacate or modify the award,

          relying, in part, on section 2-1401. The City argued that it had entered into a contract with a

          third party after arbitration that eliminated CLP’s future damages. The circuit court confirmed

          the arbitration award and dismissed the City’s petition.

¶ 27         The appellate court agreed, noting that a judgment affirming an arbitration award “ ‘is a

          summary proceeding that merely makes what is already a final arbitration award a judgment

                                                     -6-
       1-22-0650

          of the court.’ ” Chicago Loop Parking LLC, 2014 IL App (1st) 133020, ¶ 52 (quoting Ottley v.

          Schwartzberg, 819 F.2d 373, 377 (2d Cir. 1987)).The court found “nothing wrong with the ***

          judgment itself” and since the circuit court was aware of the City’s contract with the third

          party, it did not constitute a new fact as required by section 2-1401. Id. ¶ 50-51.

¶ 28         Kimberly argues that the holding in Chicago Loop precluded her from bringing a section

          2-1401 petition. But Kimberly’s claim differs from Chicago Loop in two key ways. First, the

          arbitration award states “[t]he Court shall retain jurisdiction to resolve any disputes regarding

          maintenance.” More than that, the judgment provides, “This Court expressly retains

          jurisdiction over this cause for the purpose of enforcing all of the terms of this Judgment for

          Dissolution of Marriage including all the terms of the Final Arbitration Award and adjudicating

          all rights and interest expressly reserved herein.” Even absent those two provisions, the court

          that entered the judgment has continuing jurisdiction under section 5/510 (a-5) of the Illinois

          Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/510(a-5) (West 2020)), which provides

          that “[a]n order for maintenance may be modified or terminated only upon a showing of a

          substantial change in circumstances,” which fraud, if proven, would likely constitute. See In

          re Marriage of Ealy, 269 Ill. App. 3d 971, 973-74 (1995) (holding orders in dissolution of

          marriage case may be vacated or modified if procured through fraud (citing Roth v. Roth, 45

          Ill. 2d 19, 23 (1970)).

¶ 29         Second, unlike Chicago Loop, Kimberly arguably would have been bringing to light new

          facts—Venanzio’s alleged fraud during arbitration—which, if known at the time of the

          judgment, would have precluded its entry.

¶ 30                                      Leave to Amend Complaint

                                                      -7-
       1-22-0650

¶ 31         We review the denial of leave to amend a complaint under an abuse of discretion standard.

          Romito v. City of Chicago, 2019 IL App (1st) 181152, ¶ 21. Kimberly argues the trial court

          abused its discretion in denying leave to amend.

¶ 32         The applicability of the collateral attack doctrine precludes amending the complaint.

          Besides, Kimberly asked to amend after the court entered final judgment. A plaintiff has no

          right to amend after a final judgment. Marshal v. County of Cook, 2016 IL App (1st) 142864

          ¶ 27. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend.

¶ 33         Affirmed.

                                                      -8-