{
  "id": 8498491,
  "name": "WILLIAM W. JOHNSON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. RICHARD A. FIELD et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Johnson v. Field",
  "decision_date": "1989-03-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 2\u201488\u20140781",
  "first_page": "341",
  "last_page": "344",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "181 Ill. App. 3d 341"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "484 N.E.2d 873",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 Ill. App. 3d 747",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3639261
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/137/0747-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "508 N.E.2d 324",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 Ill. App. 3d 692",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3465630
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/155/0692-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "510 N.E.2d 1148",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 Ill. App. 3d 731",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3542647
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/157/0731-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "452 N.E.2d 372",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 Ill. App. 3d 681",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3519302
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/116/0681-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "529 N.E.2d 718",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 Ill. App. 3d 227",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3554949
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/175/0227-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 349,
    "char_count": 7984,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.746,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20505230227708257
    },
    "sha256": "b3c6b3ecefb48873a5466bf993cc3894f4bdead38920ebc28bbb92cd83dc4266",
    "simhash": "1:4e8b700c554e1139",
    "word_count": 1321
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:30:31.344826+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "DUNN and McLAREN, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "WILLIAM W. JOHNSON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. RICHARD A. FIELD et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE LINDBERG\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiffs, William W. and Wenche W. Johnson, appeal from the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County entered after a bench trial granting the post-trial motion of defendants, Richard A. and Judith W. Field, to vacate judgment for plaintiffs and entering judgment for defendants. The issue at trial was whether defendants breached an agreement to purchase plaintiffs\u2019 home and thereby forfeited their earnest money under the real estate contract. However, we decline to address the merits of the parties\u2019 contentions on appeal because of a lack of appellate jurisdiction.\nPlaintiffs filed their complaint on October 24, 1986. Defendants filed their amended answer, affirmative defense and counterclaim on March 23, 1987. On April 6, 1987, plaintiffs filed a motion to strike defendants\u2019 amended answer, affirmative defense and counterclaim. In addition, plaintiffs, in the same April 6, 1987, motion to strike, sought sanctions against defendants pursuant to section 2 \u2014 611 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 611). A hearing was held on plaintiffs\u2019 motion, and on May 20, 1987, the trial court entered an order granting plaintiffs\u2019 motion to strike defendants\u2019 amended answer, affirmative defense and counterclaim and gave defendants 21 days to respond to plaintiffs\u2019 complaint. The trial court in its May 20, 1987, order specifically reserved its ruling on the section 2 \u2014 611 sanctions sought by plaintiffs. Defendants filed their second-amended answer, affirmative defense and counterclaim on June 11, 1987. On October 28, 1987, plaintiffs filed a motion for additional section 2 \u2014 611 sanctions based on defendants\u2019 June 11, 1987, filing of pleadings which were, in part, a verbatim refiling of the same pleadings the trial court previously ordered stricken on May 20, 1987. On November 12, 1987, the trial court, pursuant to cross-motions for summary judgment, ordered stricken parts of defendants\u2019 affirmative defense, contained in their second-amended answer. The trial court de-dined to grant summary judgment to either party. The trial court did not address the issue of sanctions in its order of November 12, 1987.\nOn April 11, 1988, a bench trial was held. After the parties stipulated to certain facts, testimony was heard and exhibits presented, the trial court entered judgment on April 19, 1988, finding in favor of plaintiffs on plaintiffs\u2019 complaints and defendants\u2019 counterclaim. The trial court awarded the earnest money and costs to plaintiffs and the accrued interest on the earnest money to defendants. The judgment did not address the issue of section 2 \u2014 611 sanctions. The parties filed their respective post-trial motions pursuant to section 2 \u2014 1203 of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 1203). Neither party addressed the issue of sanctions in its post-trial motions. On July 12, 1988, the trial court, after a hearing on the parties\u2019 post-trial motions, reversed itself and entered judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiffs and awarded the earnest money and interest accrued to defendants. Also, on July 12, 1988, the trial court entered an order giving plaintiffs until July 22, 1988, to supplement their motion for section 2 \u2014 611 sanctions and giving defendants until July 29, 1988, to respond. A hearing on sanctions was set for August 9,1988.\nPlaintiffs filed their supplemental pleadings to their earlier motions for section 2 \u2014 611 sanctions, and defendants filed their response. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on August 9, 1988, and on that date entered an order taking the matter under advisement and stating that a ruling on the issue would be made and the parties notified by mail within 10 days. On August 10, 1988, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal seeking a review of the trial court\u2019s July 12, 1988, order granting judgment in favor of defendants. On August 24, 1988, the trial court entered judgment for plaintiffs and against defendants on plaintiffs\u2019 motions for section 2 \u2014 611 sanctions previously filed on April 6, and October 28, 1987, and as supplemented by leave of the court. The August 24, 1988, judgment awarded plaintiffs $1,062.50 in attorney fees based on the verbatim refiling by defendants of pleadings which had been previously stricken by the court.\nA court of review has a duty to consider its jurisdiction to hear an appeal and to dismiss an appeal if jurisdiction is found to be lacking. (Benet Realty Corp. v. Lisle Savings & Loan Association (1988), 175 Ill. App. 3d 227, 529 N.E.2d 718.) Plaintiffs seek review of the trial court\u2019s order of July 12, 1988, reversing the trial court\u2019s earlier judgment for plaintiffs and granting judgment in favor of defendants. The July 12, 1988, order of the court did not dispose of plaintiffs\u2019 claim for attorney fees pursuant to section 2 \u2014 611 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 611) and, therefore, was not yet appealable under Supreme Court Rule 301 (107 Ill. 2d R. 301). See 107 Ill. 2d R. 304.\nSupreme Court Rule 304 governs the timing of appeals from final orders which do not dispose of an entire proceeding. (107 Ill. 2d R. 304.) A petition for sanctions pursuant to section 2 \u2014 611 of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 611) is a \u201cclaim\u201d as that term is used in Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (107 Ill. 2d R. 304(a)). (Hise v. Hull (1983), 116 Ill. App. 3d 681, 452 N.E.2d 372; Martzaklis v. 5559 Belmont Corp. (1987), 157 Ill. App. 3d 731, 510 N.E.2d 1148.) Since the order of July 12, 1988, granting judgment for defendants did not dispose of plaintiffs\u2019 claim for sanctions pursuant to section 2 \u2014 611 of the Code, the July 12, 1988, order was not a final order which disposed of all claims between the parties and, therefore, was not appeal-able absent an express finding by the trial court of \u201cno just reason to delay enforcement or appeal\u201d as required by Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (107 Ill. 2d R. 304(a)). (Hamer v. Lentz (1987), 155 Ill. App. 3d 692, 508 N.E.2d 324; Hise v. Hull (1983), 116 Ill. App. 3d 681, 452 N.E.2d 372 (held that claim for sanctions pursuant to section 2 \u2014 611 of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 611), at least if filed as part of responsive pleadings, was a claim as that term is used in Supreme Court Rule 304(a), and trial court\u2019s order which reserved ruling on the claim for sanctions was not appealable order absent required finding under Rule 304(a)).) On July 12, 1988, the trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants; the trial court also entered an order setting the dates for plaintiffs\u2019 supplemental motions for section 2\u2014 611 sanctions, defendants\u2019 response, and a hearing. The trial court on August 24, 1988, entered a judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants awarding plaintiffs $1,062.50 in attorney fees pursuant to section 2 \u2014 611 of the Code. The August 24, 1988, order imposing sanctions under section 2 \u2014 611 resolved the last outstanding claim before the trial court involving plaintiffs and defendants. The notice of appeal filed August 10, 1988, was premature in that it was filed two weeks before the August 24, 1988, order disposing of plaintiffs' claim for sanctions pursuant to section 2 \u2014 611 of the Code. The August 10, 1988, notice of appeal, being premature, was ineffective in conferring appellate jurisdiction upon this court. (Yardley v. Yardley (1985), 137 Ill. App. 3d 747, 484 N.E.2d 873; 107 Ill. 2d R. 304(a).) Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to address the merits of plaintiffs\u2019 appeal.\nAppeal dismissed.\nDUNN and McLAREN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE LINDBERG"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Burl F. Nader, of Libertyville, for appellants.",
      "Donald W. Kahn, of Law Offices of Kahn & Lapidos, of Libertyville, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILLIAM W. JOHNSON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. RICHARD A. FIELD et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nSecond District\nNo. 2\u201488\u20140781\nOpinion filed March 27, 1989.\n\u2014 Rehearing denied May 3, 1989.\nBurl F. Nader, of Libertyville, for appellants.\nDonald W. Kahn, of Law Offices of Kahn & Lapidos, of Libertyville, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0341-01",
  "first_page_order": 363,
  "last_page_order": 366
}