Court Opinion

ID: 9704728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:44:19.668842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:04.714878
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COOK, specially concurring: Section 405 does not require the court to give notice of the default hearing. Section 405 does require the court to satisfy itself that all proper means have been taken to notify respondent of "the pendency of the suit.” (750 ILCS 5/405 (West 1992); see In re Marriage of Sheber (1984), 121 Ill. App. 3d 328, 337, 459 N.E.2d 1056, 1063; In re Marriage of Kopec (1982), 106 Ill. App. 3d 1060, 1064, 436 N.E.2d 684, 687.) A party served with summons, as respondent was here, will have notice of the pendency of the suit. Section 405 accordingly has its greatest eifect in cases terminating the status of marriage ("zro rem cases”) which are commenced by service by publication. Neither the court nor the petitioner is required to give notice of a hearing to a party who has not filed an answer or appearance. " '[0]nce a court acquires jurisdiction, it is the duty of the litigants to follow the [progress of their own] case.’ ” (Smith v. Airoom, Inc. (1986), 114 Ill. 2d 209, 227, 499 N.E.2d 1381, 1389, quoting Esczuk v. Chicago Transit Authority (1968), 39 Ill. 2d 464, 467, 236 N.E.2d 719, 721.) I agree with the majority, however, that more than a failure to comply with section 405 was involved here, and that respondent could have obtained relief from the default judgment had she diligently pursued a hearing on her motion to vacate.