Court Opinion

ID: 9389188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-24 20:03:55.343851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:25.704393
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 221782-U
                                                                                 FIFTH DIVISION

                                                                                     April 21, 2023

                                           No. 1-22-1782

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

                                              IN THE
                                APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                         FIRST DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
COLIN KISSOON,                                                 )   Appeal from the Circuit Court
                                                               )   of Cook County.
          Plaintiff-Appellee,                                  )
                                                               )
     v.                                                        )   No. 19 CH 9140
                                                               )
BARBARA VLCEK and UKNOWN OCCUPANTS,                            )
                                                               )   The Honorable Raymond
          Defendant                                            )   Mitchell and Anna
                                                               )   Demacopoulos, Judges
(Cheryl Simpson, Appellant)                                    )   Presiding.

          PRESIDING JUSTICE DELORT delivered the judgment of the court.
          Justices Lyle and Navarro concurred in the judgment.

                                              ORDER

¶1    Held:     The law of the case doctrine prevents relitigation of an issue which this court
                decided in a prior appeal. The second appeal was frivolous within the scope of
                Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994) and the appellant is sanctioned
                to pay the appellee’s attorney fees.
No. 1-22-1782

¶2    The plaintiff, Colin Kissoon, filed a three-count amended complaint against the defendants,

Barbara Vlcek and unknown owners, for ejectment, specific performance, and breach of contract,

relating to residential property located in Chicago. The circuit court granted summary judgment to

Kissoon and entered an order declaring that he was the lawful owner and possessor of the property

as against Vlcek and unknown occupants. The court stated in the order that Vlcek “had litigated

with great gusto but made assertions devoid of truth.”

¶3    Shortly after the circuit court granted summary judgment to Kissoon, he filed a motion for

an eviction order against unknown occupants whom he discovered residing at the property. On

March 8, 2021, the court granted that motion, specifically finding that the unknown occupants at

the property were (1) not Kissoon’s tenants, (2) had no possessory right to the property, and (3)

were a direct threat to the health and safety of Kissoon, his family, and neighbors. The court also

directed the Cook County Sheriff to execute the eviction order instanter.

¶4    Shortly thereafter, Cheryl Simpson, who identified herself as one of the unknown occupants,

filed a motion to reconsider and stay the circuit court’s ejectment order, in which she essentially

reiterated Vlcek’s arguments opposing summary judgment. Simpson was already familiar to the

court because she had assisted Vlcek in defending against the summary judgment motion, though

Simpson was not an attorney and never sought leave to intervene in the case. Kissoon responded

to Simpson’s motion, arguing she lacked standing to attack the summary judgment order because

she was not a party. On April 20, 2021, the court denied Simpson’s motion. She then appealed

only the March 8 order granting summary judgment in favor of Kissoon.

¶5    On April 29, the Cook County Sheriff executed an eviction order at the property against an

unnamed female resident.

                                                2
No. 1-22-1782

¶6    Kissoon moved to dismiss Simpson’s appeal and requested that this court impose sanctions

upon her pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994). This court took Kissoon’s

motions with the case. After full briefing, this court issued a 21-page opinion reviewing the case

in detail. This court reasoned that because Simpson was not a party, her motion to reconsider the

summary judgment order did not toll the time to appeal that order, resulting in her appeal being

untimely. Therefore, this court dismissed her appeal. Kissoon v. Vlcek, 2022 IL App (1st) 210488

(Kissoon I).

¶7    This court next addressed Kissoon’s sanctions motion. Although the court lacked

jurisdiction over Simpson’s appeal on the merits, it was required to address the merits of the appeal

to determine whether it was frivolous. In so doing, this court found that Simpson lacked standing,

and the circuit court’s summary judgment order was well grounded in the facts and law. Kissoon

I, ¶¶ 65-68. Specifically, this court found that “Simpson’s appeal and her reconsideration motion

in the trial court were frivolous, as they were not well-grounded in fact or warranted by law.” Id.

¶ 65. Notwithstanding that finding, this court declined to grant sanctions, noting that Simpson’s

actions were grounded in “a wholly mistaken but understandable layperson’s belief.” Id. ¶ 69.

¶8    Simpson was undeterred. On August 11, 2022, only days after this court returned its

mandate to the circuit court, Simpson filed a pleading in the circuit court captioned “petition to

vacate summary judgment and eviction order.” The petition does not reference section 2-1401 of

the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (Pub. Act 102-813, § 675 (eff. May 13, 2022) (amending 735

ILCS 5/2-1401)) or any other procedural mechanism for vacating a circuit court order at such a

late juncture. It also does not reference this court’s opinion which held that Simpson lacked

standing. On September 9, 2022, Simpson also filed a “petition to have a corrected order drafted.”

                                                 3
No. 1-22-1782

¶9    On November 3, 2022, the circuit court1 entered an order stating: “Pursuant to the Appellate

Court’s mandate denying Non-Party Cheryl Simpson’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and standing

to appeal, Non-Party Cheryl Simpson’s Emergency Petitions are DENIED.” On November 29,

Simpson filed a notice of appeal not only appealing the November 3, 2022 order, but orders

supposedly entered on March 8, 2019, March 31, 2019, and April 19, 2019. However, the

complaint was not even filed until August 7, 2019. Clerical errors in a notice of appeal do not

necessarily render the notice defective, so we will presume that the year “2019” is a scrivener’s

error and that Simpson intended to refer to orders entered in 2021. Gillard v. Northwestern

Memorial Hospital, 2019 IL App (1st) 182348, ¶ 41.

¶ 10 Simpson has filed a brief in this court which does not even mention this court’s prior

opinion. Kissoon has moved to dismiss the appeal, and he again seeks sanctions under Illinois

Supreme Court Rule 375 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994). Simpson responded to those motions, and then moved

to file an additional response. This court stayed further briefing on its own motion.

¶ 11 We first address jurisdiction. Simpson already appealed the March 8, 2021 order granting

summary judgment and, presumably, earlier orders in the procedural progression leading to it. This

court found that her appeal was untimely. Kissoon I, ¶ 59. It is obvious that her second and later

appeal of those same orders is also untimely. However, Simpson’s appeal of the circuit court’s

November 3, 2022, order is timely, and we will proceed to review that portion of the appeal.

¶ 12 In her brief, Simpson does not explain how the circuit court could have had jurisdiction to

entertain her post-appeal petition to vacate summary judgment and eviction order, and her petition

       1
       Up to this point, the relevant orders had been entered by Judge Raymond Mitchell.
However, he was then appointed to this court, and the final order was entered by Judge Anna
Demacopoulos.
                                                 4
No. 1-22-1782

to issue a corrected order. Instead, she rehashes arguments she made in the prior appeal against the

circuit court’s original summary judgment order. These arguments are now barred by the law of

the case doctrine. Under that doctrine, rulings on points of law made by a reviewing court are

binding in that case both on the trial court and on subsequent appeals to that same reviewing court,

unless a higher court has changed the law. Therefore, the determination of a question of law by an

appellate court on the first appeal is generally binding upon it on the second appeal. See Barnai v.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2021 IL App (1st) 191306, ¶ 48 (citing Emerson Electric Co. v. Aetna

Casualty & Surety Co., 352 Ill. App. 3d 399, 417 (2004) and Krautsack v. Anderson, 223 Ill. 2d

541, 552 (2006)). We see no reason to depart from that doctrine here, and therefore affirm the

circuit court’s November 3, 2022, order.

¶ 13 Kissoon has moved for sanctions against Simpson in this appeal, and we agree that sanctions

are appropriate. In Kissoon I, although this court specifically found that Simpson’s appeal was

frivolous within the meaning of Rule 375, it stayed its hand, noting Simpson’s “mistaken

layperson’s belief.” All litigation must eventually come to an end, however, and this litigation

came to an end when this court issued Kissoon I. Simpson’s conduct in returning to the circuit

court, and this court, to relitigate decided issues is even more frivolous than her conduct in the first

appeal, and the facts which moved this court to deny sanctions in Kissoon I are no longer present.

Instead, the record shows that Simpson has ignored multiple warnings regarding her potentially

sanctionable conduct. These warnings include this court’s opinion explaining to Simpson why her

position was incorrect, as well as a letter Kissoon’s counsel sent to Simpson, informing her that

she could face sanctions if she did not withdraw this appeal. Rather than heeding these warnings,

Simpson pursued the same arguments she already lost in the circuit court and this court.

                                                   5
No. 1-22-1782

¶ 14 Upon consideration of the sanctions motion, we find that this appeal was frivolous within

the scope of Rule 375, and we impose a sanction of paying Kissoon “the reasonable costs of the

appeal *** including reasonable attorney fees.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 375(b) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994); see also

Parkway Bank and Trust Company v. Korzen, 2013 IL App (1st) 130380, ¶¶ 101-102. Kissoon

may file a petition for attorney fees and costs within 14 days of this court’s order, restricted to fees

relating to this appeal. Simpson shall then have 14 days to file a response. The response shall be

strictly limited to the attorney fee petition, and shall not address the case on the merits. This court

shall retain jurisdiction to consider the fee petition.

¶ 15 In summary, we dismiss the appeal as to the circuit court orders entered in 2021, and affirm

the circuit court’s November 3, 2022 order. We thus grant the pending motion to dismiss in part

and deny it in part, and we grant the motion for sanctions. We also grant Simpson’s motion to file

an additional response to the motion to dismiss, and set a briefing schedule on Kissoon’s fee

petition.

¶ 16 Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

                                                   6