{
  "id": 2534000,
  "name": "SJS INVESTMENTS, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. La SALLE NATIONAL BANK, as Trustee, Defendant (The 450 East Partnership, a/k/a The 450 East Ohio Partnership, Indiv. and as Beneficial Owner of 450 East Ohio Street, Chicago, Defendant-Appellee)",
  "name_abbreviation": "SJS Investments, Ltd. v. La Salle National Bank",
  "decision_date": "1991-02-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 1-89-2649",
  "first_page": "228",
  "last_page": "230",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 Ill. App. 3d 228"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "452 N.E.2d 372",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 Ill. App. 3d 681",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3519302
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/116/0681-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "563 N.E.2d 459",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 Ill. 2d 458",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5576586
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/138/0458-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 258,
    "char_count": 4569,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.722,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0715810811933522e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5598828348679787
    },
    "sha256": "366fa17804f8cde58fcd5ceb5a7f2eb6bba64c332adfab22c95b941f6911a7ea",
    "simhash": "1:bda20557f46fe219",
    "word_count": 758
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:48:57.765044+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SJS INVESTMENTS, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. La SALLE NATIONAL BANK, as Trustee, Defendant (The 450 East Partnership, a/k/a The 450 East Ohio Partnership, Indiv. and as Beneficial Owner of 450 East Ohio Street, Chicago, Defendant-Appellee)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE LORENZ\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, SJS Investments, Ltd., appeals from an order granting defendant, 450 East Partnership, summary judgment. We consider whether this court has jurisdiction over plaintiff\u2019s appeal when it was filed while defendant\u2019s motion for attorney fees under section 2 \u2014 611 of the Civil Practice Law (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 611) was pending. For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.\nOn July 15, 1988, plaintiff filed a complaint for specific performance against defendant and La Salle National Bank. The trial court subsequently entered summary judgment in defendant\u2019s favor and dismissed La Salle National Bank from the case. Within 30 days of that order, plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider which was denied on August 24,1989.\nAlso on that day, defendant filed a motion for attorney fees under section 2 \u2014 611 which was set for hearing on October 19, 1989. While that motion was pending, on September 15, 1989, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the order granting defendant summary judgment and the order denying its motion to reconsider.\nOpinion\nIn its brief, plaintiff states that the appeal was taken under Supreme Court Rule 303 (134 Ill. 2d R. 303), which requires a notice of appeal to be filed within 30 days of a final judgment or, if a post-trial motion was filed, within 30 days of the order disposing of the post-trial motion. The question this court must consider is what effect the pendency of defendant\u2019s section 2 \u2014 611 motion for attorney fees had on plaintiff\u2019s ability to appeal.\nThe Illinois Supreme Court recently decided the issue presented in Marsh v. Evangelical Covenant Church (1990), 138 Ill. 2d 458, 563 N.E.2d 459. In Marsh, judgment was entered against plaintiffs, and within 30 days, they filed a notice of appeal. The same day the notice of appeal was filed, defendant filed a motion for attorney fees under section 2 \u2014 611 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 611 (substantially preempted by Supreme Court Rule 137 (134 Ill. 2d R. 137))).\nDefendant in Marsh moved to dismiss the appeal, contending that it was filed prematurely because its section 2 \u2014 611 motion was pending. The court discussed Hise v. Hull (1983), 116 Ill. App. 3d 681, 452 N.E.2d 372, which stated that a section 2 \u2014 611 motion filed after the entry of judgment was a separate action and the judgment may be appealed without a finding under Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (134 Ill. 2d R. 304(a)) that there was no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal.\nThe court in Marsh noted, however, that after the decision in Hise, section 2 \u2014 611 was amended, effective November 25, 1986, and now provides that a motion for attorney fees under the section is part of the same proceeding and is not a separate cause of action. Therefore, under the amendment, an appeal could not be taken from a judgment if a section 2 \u2014 611 motion was pending without a Rule 304(a) finding. The court found that the amendment to section 2 \u2014 611 was applicable to plaintiffs\u2019 complaint because it was filed after the effective date of the amendment. As a result, the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs\u2019 appeal because it was premature when defendant\u2019s section 2 \u2014 611 motion was pending and the order appealed from did not contain a Rule 304(a) finding.\nSimilarly, in this case, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal while defendant\u2019s motion for attorney fees under section 2 \u2014 611 was pending. The amendment to section 2 \u2014 611 relied on in Marsh, which provides that a section 2 \u2014 611 motion continues the proceeding, is also applicable to plaintiff\u2019s complaint, filed after its effective date. Under Marsh, plaintiff\u2019s appeal was premature because defendant\u2019s section 2 \u2014 611 motion was pending and the order appealed from did not have a Rule 304(a) finding. As a result, this court does not have jurisdiction under either Supreme Court Rule 303 or 304(a).\nAppeal dismissed.\nMURRAY and McNULTY, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE LORENZ"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Melbourne A. Noel, Jr., of Katten, Muchin & Zavis, of Oakbrook Terrace, and Stephen J. Schostok, of Laser, Schostok, Kolman & Frank, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Gerald D. Mindell, of Sperling, Slater & Spitz, of Chicago, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SJS INVESTMENTS, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. La SALLE NATIONAL BANK, as Trustee, Defendant (The 450 East Partnership, a/k/a The 450 East Ohio Partnership, Indiv. and as Beneficial Owner of 450 East Ohio Street, Chicago, Defendant-Appellee).\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 1 \u2014 89\u20142649\nOpinion filed February 15, 1991.\nMelbourne A. Noel, Jr., of Katten, Muchin & Zavis, of Oakbrook Terrace, and Stephen J. Schostok, of Laser, Schostok, Kolman & Frank, of Chicago, for appellant.\nGerald D. Mindell, of Sperling, Slater & Spitz, of Chicago, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0228-01",
  "first_page_order": 250,
  "last_page_order": 252
}