Page 18 - John Hundley 2018

Affidavit For Alternate Service Must State Facts

A court order permitting alternate service is not conclusive as to whether a plaintiff has the right to
engage in such service.

That’s the message of Urban Partnership Bank v. Ragdale, 2017 IL App (1st) 160773.

Of particular significance is the affidavit required by 735 ILCS 5/2-203.1 to
utilize the alternative service procedures. Noting “there are no magic words” that
an affidavit in support of a § 2-203.1 motion must include, the court said the
affidavit must “set forth facts that demonstrate a diligent inquiry as to the location
of the defendant.”

Because the affidavit supporting the alternate service order was deficient, the
panel ruled the trial court never acquired personal jurisdiction over the defendant
so served, and it vacated the resulting judgment.

Court May Consider Service Issue Sua Sponte

To ensure that it has the power to enter the impending judgment, Illinois courts have a
responsibility to inquire sua sponte as to service on an absent defendant.

So said a panel of the Appellate Court in Chicago in Dore v. Quezada, 2017 IL App (1st) 162142.

Dore dealt with a citation respondent who was “served” by abode service at a place that was not
his regular place of abode. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court should not have reached this
issue of its own volition.

Analogizing to a sua sponte doctrine in federal courts, the panel rejected that argument. And
noting that a return of abode service must show strict compliance with all the requirements of 735
ILCS 5/2-203, it found the attempted service ineffective.

Former Defendants May Be Respondents In Discovery (Again)

Another court has ruled that a party once named as a defendant but dismissed without prejudice
can be re-joined to the litigation as a respondent in discovery (RID) under 735 ILCS 5/2-402.

In Prinova Solutions, LLC v. Process Technology Corp. Ltd., 2018 IL App (2d) 170666, the court
dealt with a situation where a U.S. defendant was dismissed from a breach-of-contract suit because
the contract was with another, foreign entity. When the plaintiff re-filed against the foreign entity, it
named the former U.S. defendant as a RID. The RID moved to dismiss. Relying upon Westwood
Constr. Group, Inc. v. IRUS Property, LLC, 2016 IL App (1st) 142490 (see Sharp Thinking No. 135
(Oct. 2016)), the court said there was nothing improper about that procedure.
Brenda/SharpThinking/#154.pdf

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
SHARP-HUNDLEY, P.C.

1115 Harrison, Mt. Vernon, IL 62864 • Telephone 618-242-0200 • Facsimile 618-242-1170
www.sharp-hundley.com

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

John T. Hundley: John@sharp-hundley.com; Trevor S. Sawyer: Trevor@sharp-hundley.com

Advertising Material