{ "id": 2512868, "name": "AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATIONAL REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Defendants (William R. Fowler, Jr., Defendant-Appellant)", "name_abbreviation": "American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers of the National Ass'n of Realtors v. National Real Estate Ass'n", "decision_date": "1989-11-20", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201488\u20141945", "first_page": "867", "last_page": "871", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "191 Ill. App. 3d 867" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "320 N.E.2d 202", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "23 Ill. App. 3d 797", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2507963 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/23/0797-01" ] }, { "cite": "525 N.E.2d 141", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "170 Ill. App. 3d 698", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3586574 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/170/0698-01" ] }, { "cite": "311 N.E.2d 378", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "382" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "19 Ill. App. 3d 327", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2690052 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "331" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/19/0327-01" ] }, { "cite": "223 N.E.2d 551", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "553" }, { "page": "553" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "79 Ill. App. 2d 355", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2565938 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "359" }, { "page": "358-60" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/79/0355-01" ] }, { "cite": "454 N.E.2d 806", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "810" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 Ill. App. 3d 237", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5658418 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "241" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/118/0237-01" ] }, { "cite": "501 N.E.2d 254", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "258-59" }, { "page": "259" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "149 Ill. App. 3d 965", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3462798 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "971" }, { "page": "971" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/149/0965-01" ] }, { "cite": "397 N.E.2d 2", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "4" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "77 Ill. App. 3d 958", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3291648 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "960" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/77/0958-01" ] }, { "cite": "466 N.E.2d 681", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "685" }, { "page": "686" }, { "page": "686-87" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "125 Ill. App. 3d 800", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3631758 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "805" }, { "page": "806" }, { "page": "806-07" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/125/0800-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 502, "char_count": 9171, "ocr_confidence": 0.752, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.490603497549194e-08, "percentile": 0.48622661012282953 }, "sha256": "65767c39dd533173268441f03b1e594722a97f2f0ebf3b68c4556f9676290ce0", "simhash": "1:fbb65cffa64ea4c5", "word_count": 1446 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:26:25.592248+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATIONAL REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Defendants (William R. Fowler, Jr., Defendant-Appellant)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE BUCKLEY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis appeal arises from an action for injunctive relief brought by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers (plaintiff) against National Real Estate Association (NREA), Trihedron International Assurance, Limited (Trihedron), and William Fowler (defendant) predicated upon violations of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 121\u00bd, par. 311 et seq.) and the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 121\u00bd, par. 261 et seq.). The circuit court entered a permanent injunction against defendant and Trihedron after they failed to appear and subsequently denied defendant\u2019s motion to modify the injunction, which he had filed more than 30 days from the entry of the permanent injunction.\nOn appeal of the circuit court\u2019s denial of his motion under Supreme Court Rule 307(a) (107 Ill. 2d R. 307(a)), which allows an appeal from an interlocutory order of court refusing to dissolve or modify an injunction, defendant contends that the circuit court erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. Additionally, defendant argues the merits of the action, contending that the injunction should be rescinded or modified because plaintiff did not have standing to seek injunctive relief and because the injunction is vague and overbroad. For reasons set forth below, defendant\u2019s contentions regarding the merits of this action are not properly before this court and will not be addressed in this appeal. As to the circuit court\u2019s jurisdictional ruling, we reverse.\nOn March 12, 1987, plaintiff served defendant with a summons and complaint of its action seeking \u201ca temporary restraining order and therefore preliminary and permanent injunction against [NREA], [Trihedron], [defendant], and anyone acting by or on their behalf, from offering errors and omissions insurance policies to real estate appraisers in a manner violative of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act\u201d and the \u201cIllinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.\u201d On March 31, 1987, defendant was served with the circuit court\u2019s order entering a preliminary injunction against him following his failure to appear after proper notice of the hearing on plaintiff\u2019s preliminary injunction motion.\nDefendant again failed to appear at the hearing on plaintiff\u2019s motion for a permanent injunction on November 30, 1987, despite proper notice of the hearing. On December 1, 1987, the circuit court issued a default judgment against defendant and Trihedron and continued the action as to NREA after it appeared and defended the action. The permanent injunction entered against defendant, similar to the language in the preliminary injunction previously served upon him, provided:\n\u201c[Defendant], his agents and attorneys and all persons acting in concert and participation with him, are permanently enjoined from offering, either directly or indirectly, errors and omissions policies to real estate appraisers.\u201d\nAfter defendant was served with the permanent injunction, he appeared in the circuit court on March 11, 1988, at which time the circuit court granted defendant leave to file a motion to modify or rescind the December 1, 1987, injunction. Following defendant\u2019s written motion and supporting affidavit, the circuit court denied defendant\u2019s motion on May 23,1988.\nA permanent injunction is a \u201cfinal judgment,\u201d subjecting it to the 30-day time limits for filing post-trial motions and notices of appeal under the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure and supreme court rules. (Bundy v. Church League of America (1984), 125 Ill. App. 3d 800, 805, 466 N.E.2d 681, 685; Walker v. Board of Police & Fire Commissioners (1979), 77 Ill. App. 3d 958, 960, 397 N.E.2d 2, 4; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2\u20141203; 107 Ill. 2d Rules 303, 304(a).) Under the general rule relating to final judgments, a circuit court is divested of jurisdiction to grant post-trial relief after 30 days unless a party, who has filed a section 2\u20141401 petition within two years of the entry of the judgment, satisfies that section\u2019s \u201cdue diligence\u201d and \u201cmeritorious defense\u201d requirements. (Burton v. Estrada (1986), 149 Ill. App. 3d 965, 971, 501 N.E.2d 254, 258-59; Lofendo v. Ozog (1983), 118 Ill. App. 3d 237, 241, 454 N.E.2d 806, 810; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2\u20141401.) To satisfy the \u201cdue diligence\u201d requirement, a movant must show that the judgment was not entered due to his own inexcusable neglect and that the movant was diligent in presenting the post-judgment petition. Burton, 149 Ill. App. 3d at 971, 501 N.E.2d at 259.\nAn exception to the above rule is that circuit courts have jurisdiction, or inherent power, to modify or dissolve their own injunctions after the lapse of the 30-day limit. (Bundy, 125 Ill. App. 3d at 806, 466 N.E.2d at 686; Field v. Field (1967), 79 Ill. App. 2d 355, 359, 223 N.E.2d 551, 553.) The circuit court\u2019s jurisdiction in these circumstances, however, is limited to determining whether changes in the applicable law or facts since the rendition of the judgment warrant a modification of the terms of the injunction. It does not include the power to inquire into the propriety of the procedural and substantive aspects of the judgment as to conditions existing at the time of the entry of the judgment. Bundy, 125 Ill. App. 3d at 806-07, 466 N.E.2d at 686-87; People v. Mulgrew (1974), 19 Ill. App. 3d 327, 331, 311 N.E.2d 378, 382; Field, 79 Ill. App. 2d at 358-60, 223 N.E.2d at 553.\nIn the case at bar, defendant has failed to appeal within the 30-day period for post-judgment relief after proper notice of the judgment. It is apparent that defendant is not entitled to post-judgment relief under section 2\u20141401: Not only has defendant failed to file a section 2\u20141401 petition in this action, he has not attempted to establish section 2\u20141401\u2019s \u201cdue diligence\u201d prerequisite that his failure to defend the action or appeal the judgment is not attributable to his own inexcusable neglect.\nNonetheless, defendant contends that he is entitled to relief based upon the circuit court\u2019s inherent power to modify its own injunction. As stated above, such relief is dependent upon a showing of a change in facts or law since the issuance of the injunction to warrant a modification of the injunction\u2019s terms. The circuit court determined that defendant did not demonstrate a change in facts or law which would warrant a modification of the injunction\u2019s prohibition against defendant\u2019s ever offering errors and omissions insurance to real estate appraisers. In reviewing the circuit court\u2019s ruling, we are mindful that a circuit court\u2019s decision to grant or deny injunctive relief is discretionary and should not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Talbert & Mallon, P.C. v. Carlson (1988), 170 Ill. App. 3d 698, 525 N.E.2d 141; Toushin v. City of Chicago (1974), 23 Ill. App. 3d 797, 320 N.E.2d 202.\nDefendant argues that he demonstrated a change in facts to warrant a modification of the injunction\u2019s terms, since the only allegations in plaintiff\u2019s complaint against him are directed at his association with Trihedron as authorized representative and his supporting affidavit indicates that \u201cas of and prior to March 1, 1988, NREA no longer promotes Trihedron errors and omissions coverage to NREA members.\u201d Plaintiff\u2019s complaint discloses allegations that NREA\u2019s promotional materials in connection with its soliciting real estate appraisers for errors and omissions policies underwritten by Trihedron, an undercapitalized, offshore carrier, constituted misleading and false advertising. It sought to enjoin NREA, Trihedron, and defendant, as NREA\u2019s agent and Trihedron\u2019s authorized representative, from future deceptive practices in the offering of errors and omissions insurance policies.\nBy asserting that he had discontinued his relationship with Trihedron and his promotion of those materials since the rendition of the judgment, defendant here attempted to show a change in the very facts which formed the basis of the complaint against him and which underlie the permanent injunction. We find that the circuit court abused its discretion in finding these changes in facts would not warrant a modification of the injunction and in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the propriety of defendant\u2019s claims. Without delving into the appropriate relief to be given upon a finding of a change in circumstances, as should be properly left for the circuit court, we remand this case to the circuit court with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing consistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nMANNING, P.J., and O\u2019CONNOR, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE BUCKLEY" } ], "attorneys": [ "Terrance J. Coughlin, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Matthew J. Iverson, of Burditt, Bowles, Radzius & Ruberry, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATIONAL REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Defendants (William R. Fowler, Jr., Defendant-Appellant).\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 1\u201488\u20141945\nOpinion filed November 20, 1989.\nTerrance J. Coughlin, of Chicago, for appellant.\nMatthew J. Iverson, of Burditt, Bowles, Radzius & Ruberry, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0867-01", "first_page_order": 889, "last_page_order": 893 }