Court Opinion

ID: 9380657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-20 20:03:20.363294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:26.658297
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (2d) 220270-U
                                         No. 2-22-0270
                                   Order filed March 20, 2023

      NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent
      except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
______________________________________________________________________________

                                             IN THE

                              APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                              SECOND DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________

TOWER LOAN of ILLINOIS, LLC,           ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
d/b/a Tower Loan of Waukegan,          ) of Lake County.
                                       )
      Plaintiff-Appellee,              )
                                       )
v.                                     ) No. 21-SC-5433
                                       )
RICARDO AGUILAR,                       ) Honorable
                                       ) Christopher B. Morozin,
      Defendant-Appellant.             ) Judge, Presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________

       JUSTICE HUTCHINSON delivered the judgment of the court.
       Presiding Justice McLaren and Justice Birkett concurred in the judgment.

                                             ORDER

¶1     Held: The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment
             entered when he failed to appear at trial. Although defendant was in Mexico when
             the summons was served at his domestic address, he appeared by Zoom at the first
             hearing. He gave no reasonable explanation why he did not appear subsequently in
             the case. Also, defendant failed to show that he had a meritorious defense to the
             action.

¶2     Defendant, Ricardo Aguilar, appeals pro se from the denial of his motion to vacate a default

judgment, contending that the trial court abused its discretion when it did not allow him to present

a defense or submit evidence as to why he failed to appear. Because the court did not abuse its

discretion, we affirm.
2023 IL App (2d) 220270-U

¶3                                     I. BACKGROUND

¶4     Plaintiff, Tower Loan of Illinois, LLC, d/b/a Tower Loan of Waukegan, filed a small claims

complaint against defendant, alleging that he defaulted on a consumer loan and seeking

approximately $2100 in damages plus attorney fees and costs. On January 4, 2022, the complaint

and summons were served on defendant via substitute service at his home in Round Lake Heights.

The summons directed defendant to appear on January 18, 2022.

¶5     At the hearing on January 18, 2022, defendant appeared via Zoom. The trial court set the

matter for trial on March 2, 2022, and ordered defendant to file a written appearance no later than

February 23, 2022. Plaintiff’s counsel subsequently mailed a notice of the March 2, 2022, trial

date to defendant at his Round Lake Heights address.

¶6     Defendant did not file a written appearance as ordered on January 18, 2022. Nor did he

appear in person or via Zoom on March 2, 2022. On March 2, 2022, the trial court reset the trial

for March 16, 2022, and ordered defendant to file a written appearance by March 14, 2022. The

court directed the clerk to mail a copy of the March 2, 2022, order to defendant at his Round Lake

Heights address. On March 8, 2022, plaintiff’s counsel mailed a copy of the March 2, 2022, order

to defendant at his Round Lake Heights address.

¶7     Defendant did not file a written appearance as ordered on March 2, 2022. On March 16,

2022, defendant did not appear for trial in person or via Zoom. Noting that defendant was not

present and had failed to file a written appearance as ordered on March 2, 2022, the trial court

entered a default judgment in favor of plaintiff for $2090 plus $283.48 in court costs, totaling

$2373.48.

¶8     On March 28, 2022, defendant filed a pro se motion, pursuant to section 2-1301 of the

Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-1301 (West 2020)), to vacate or modify the March

                                               -2-
2023 IL App (2d) 220270-U

16, 2022, judgment. Also, on March 28, 2022, defendant filed his written appearance. In his motion

to vacate, defendant asserted that he did not attend the March 2, 2022, hearing, because he was in

Mexico caring for his sick mother. He further stated that he first learned of the default judgment

on March 10, 2022.

¶9      On May 11, 2022, the trial court ordered plaintiff to file a response to the motion to vacate

and defendant to file a reply. The court set the matter for a hearing on July 11, 2022.

¶ 10    On May 26, 2022, plaintiff filed its response, asserting that defendant did not support his

motion to vacate with any evidence showing that he was out of the country. Plaintiff further

asserted that defendant was present via Zoom at the January 18, 2022, hearing and was thus fully

aware of the need to file a written appearance and of the original March 2, 2022, trial date. Finally,

plaintiff contended that, because defendant had eventually filed an appearance and a motion to

vacate, he could have filed a timely appearance or sought an extension of the appearance deadline

or the trial date.

¶ 11    On June 2, 2022, defendant filed his reply, stating that he had been in Mexico from

December 21, 2021, until March 8, 2022. He claimed that “there was no way for [him] to

neither [sic] read or answer [the summons] due to the fact that [he] was not present nor [had] access

to such legal disposition while being in Mexico[.]” He attached to the reply (1) a copy of his travel

itinerary showing that he flew to Mexico on December 21, 2021, (2) a copy of an airline ticket

showing that he flew from Texas to Chicago on March 8, 2022, and (3) a copy of what appeared

to be a doctor’s note, dated April 2022. The note was written in Spanish but included an English

translation stating that defendant’s mother was 81 years old, had a clinical history of high blood

pressure and cardiac arrythmia, and had suffered an ischemic stroke on August 25, 2021.

                                                -3-
2023 IL App (2d) 220270-U

¶ 12    On July 11, 2022, the trial court conducted a hearing on defendant’s motion to vacate.

Plaintiff and defendant were present via Zoom. A bystander’s report (see Ill. S. Ct. R. 323(c) (eff.

July 1, 2017)) of the hearing states that the trial court took “no more than five minutes” to review

the filings before asking defendant if he had anything to add. Defendant asserted that, despite being

present at the January 18, 2022, hearing and directed to appear at the March 2, 2022, trial, he

“didn’t have the means nor the ability” to appear on March 2, 2022, because he was in Mexico

caring for his sick mother. The trial court found that defendant knew of the trial date and neither

appeared nor did anything else regarding the case. The court commented that “normally it would

grant such a motion; however, [defendant] appeared via Zoom on January 18, 2022[,] when the

original trial date was set; and was given time to file an Appearance.” The court added that,

although defendant was given additional time to file a written appearance and appear for trial, he

did neither. Thus, the court denied defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment. Defendant,

in turn, filed this timely appeal.

¶ 13                                      II. ANALYSIS

¶ 14    On appeal, defendant, pro se, contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying

his motion to vacate because it neither allowed him to present a defense nor considered the

evidence he submitted to support his claim that he was unable to file an appearance or attend the

trial because he was in Mexico tending to his sick mother.

¶ 15    Section 2-1301(e) of the Code provides: “The court may in its discretion, before final order

or judgment, set aside any default, and may on motion filed within 30 days after entry thereof set

aside any final order or judgment upon any terms and conditions that shall be reasonable.” 735

ILCS 5/2-1301(e) (West 2020). There is a liberal policy regarding vacating default judgments

under section 2-1301(e). Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. McCluskey, 2013 IL 115469, ¶ 16. The

                                                -4-
2023 IL App (2d) 220270-U

overriding consideration in ruling on such a motion is whether substantial justice has been done

between the litigants and whether it is reasonable to compel the other party to go to trial on the

merits. McCluskey, 2013 IL 115469, ¶ 16. In determining whether substantial justice will be

achieved, considerations include (1) a party’s diligence or lack thereof, (2) whether the party has

a meritorious defense, (3) the severity of the resulting penalty, and (4) the relative hardships on

the parties. Draper & Kramer, Inc. v. King, 2014 IL App (1st) 132073, ¶ 23. “Although relevant,

the party need not necessarily show a meritorious defense and a reasonable excuse for failing to

timely assert such defense.” McCluskey, 2013 IL 115469, ¶ 16. “ ‘What is just and proper must be

determined by the facts of each case, not by a hard and fast rule applicable to all situations

regardless of the outcome.’ ” McCluskey, 2013 IL 115469, ¶ 16 (quoting Widicus v. Southwestern

Electric Cooperative, Inc., 26 Ill. App. 2d 102, 109 (1960)). Whether to grant or deny a motion to

vacate a default judgment is within the trial court’s sound discretion, and we will not reverse the

court’s ruling unless it has abused its discretion. Glover v. Fitch, 2015 IL App (1st) 130827, ¶ 29.

A trial court abuses its discretion only where no reasonable person would take the trial court’s

view, meaning that the court acted arbitrarily or ignored recognized legal principles. Glover, 2015

IL App (1st) 130827, ¶ 29.

¶ 16   Here, although defendant was in Mexico on January 4, 2022, and claimed below that he

had no way to “read or answer” the summons served that day, he did not claim that service was

deficient or that he was not notified of the January 18, 2022, hearing. Indeed, he attended the

January 18, 2022, hearing via Zoom. Thus, he was aware of the original March 2, 2022, trial date

and the need to file a written appearance. When defendant did not appear at the March 2, 2022,

trial, the court continued it to March 16, 2022, and gave defendant until March 14, 2022, to file

his appearance. Defendant does not contend that he was not notified of either of those two dates.

                                               -5-
2023 IL App (2d) 220270-U

¶ 17   Although defendant asserts that he was unable to file a written appearance or attend the

trial because he was in Mexico, he does not explain why—after attending the January 18, 2022,

hearing via Zoom—he could not later attend via Zoom the original March 2, 2022, trial or the

rescheduled March 16, 2022, trial. Further, we observe that defendant returned home from Mexico

on March 8, 2022. This raises the question of why he could not file his appearance and attend the

March 16, 2022, trial or, at the very least, seek a continuance. We also find it curious that, in his

motion to vacate the default judgment, defendant stated that he learned of the default on March

10, 2022, although the default judgment was not entered until March 16, 2022. Accordingly, we

conclude that defendant’s explanation for failing to file a written appearance and attend the

scheduled trial is questionable and insufficient to justify relief under section 2-1301(e).

¶ 18   We further note that defendant’s motion to vacate failed to identify a meritorious defense

to plaintiff’s claim. Although that fact is not dispositive, it is a relevant consideration supporting

the denial of his motion to vacate. See McCluskey, 2013 IL 115469, ¶ 16. We also note that the

bystander’s report does not support defendant’s assertion that the trial court gave him no chance

to articulate a defense at the hearing. When the court asked defendant what he wished to add

beyond the arguments in his motion, defendant addressed only why he failed to appear at trial in

the case.

¶ 19   Given that defendant (1) failed to show that he was unaware of the scheduled trial date and

the need to file an appearance, (2) failed to establish a reasonable explanation for his failure to

attend the trial, and (3) failed to offer a meritorious defense to the claim, we cannot say that the

trial court abused its discretion in denying the section 2-1301 motion to vacate the default

judgment.

¶ 20                                    III. CONCLUSION

                                                -6-
2023 IL App (2d) 220270-U

¶ 21   For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County.

¶ 22   Affirmed.

                                              -7-