Page 26 - John Hundley 2014

determinative facts and legal theories the trial court relied on in deciding whether to allow or deny
sanctions, that court reasoned.

Subsequently, in O’Brien & Assoc., P.C. v. Tim Thompson, Inc., 274
Ill.App.3d 472 (2nd Dist. 1995), the court held that even when a hearing on a
Rule 137 motion has been held, if the trial judge fails to make specific findings
that articulate the reasons for his or her decision to deny sanctions, the
judge’s order must be vacated and the cause remanded for further
proceedings.

The Appellate Court’s Third District recognized that the decision to
impose sanctions or not is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and
will not be reversed on appeal without showing an abuse of discretion. In re
Estate of Smith, 201 Ill.App.3d 1005 (3rd Dist. 1990). However, it
acknowledged that the predicate to such deference is that the circuit court make an informed and
reasoned decision that clearly sets forth the factual basis for the results reached.

It all comes down to the function of the Appellate Court. As
articulated by the Smith court, an Appellate Court must be able to
determine: (1) whether the circuit court’s decision was an informed one;
(2) whether the decision was based on valid reasons that fit the case; and
(3) whether the decision followed logically from the application of the
reasons stated in the particular circumstances of the case.

Without providing an explanation for approval or denial of sanctions
under Rule 137, because the trial court was not obliged to do so, the
foundation for valid appellate review would become an ad hoc affair.

Affidavit for Publication Service Must Be Current

A 50-day gap between when an affidavit for service by publication was notarized and the filing of
the motion for such service is excessive and voids the attempted service by publication, a panel in the
Appellate Court’s First District has held.

Noting that a party defending notice by publication “must show a strict compliance with every
requirement of the statute,” the court in Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Karbowski, 2014 IL App (1st) 130112,
relied upon Campbell v. McCahan, 41 Ill. 45 (1866), where a 20-day delay was held to void the
affidavit. “If in 1866, when parties relied on mail or messenger delivery via horseback, a 20-day delay
defeated the showing of due diligence required to justify service by publication, it would seem obvious
that a 50-day delay nearly 150 years later in the age of instant information should suffer the same
fate”, the court said.

Brenda\SharpThinking\#119.pdf
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
THE SHARP LAW FIRM, P.C.

1115 Harrison, P.O. Box 906, Mt. Vernon, IL 62864 • Telephone 618-242-0246 • Facsimile 618-242-1170
www.thesharpfirm.com

Business Transactions • Litigation • Financial Law • Problem Finances • Real Estate • Corporate • Commercial Disputes
Creditors’ Rights • Arbitration & Mediation • Estate Planning • Probate • Family Law

Terry Sharp: Tsharp@lotsharp.com; John T. Hundley: Jhundley@lotsharp.com;
Rebecca L. Reinhardt: Rreinhardt@lotsharp.com; Darren M. Taylor: Dtaylor@lotsharp.com

Advertising Material