{ "id": 5210362, "name": "UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM ROBERT LEE, Defendant (Nathan Shefner, Defendant-Appellant)", "name_abbreviation": "United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Lee", "decision_date": "1992-06-05", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201490\u20141596", "first_page": "635", "last_page": "638", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "230 Ill. App. 3d 635" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "578 N.E.2d 108", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "217 Ill. App. 3d 1076", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5283537 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/217/1076-01" ] }, { "cite": "548 N.E.2d 670", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 Ill. App. 3d 251", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2507796 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "254" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/192/0251-01" ] }, { "cite": "516 N.E.2d 419", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 Ill. App. 3d 1041", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3507454 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/162/1041-01" ] }, { "cite": "513 N.E.2d 1023", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "160 Ill. App. 3d 1078", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3649540 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/160/1078-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 468, "char_count": 8410, "ocr_confidence": 0.764, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.898253828779022e-08, "percentile": 0.41949414811442676 }, "sha256": "78fba51bebd8fa5025132e98aad86c9716ed66983e95c199d68df0be21ba9e9b", "simhash": "1:2b7e0b677f48c74a", "word_count": 1434 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:33.012273+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM ROBERT LEE, Defendant (Nathan Shefner, Defendant-Appellant)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE MURRAY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant Nathan Shefner (Shefner) appeals from an order of the circuit court of Cook County, striking his motion to vacate a default judgment against him dated December 14, 1989. For several reasons, we dismiss the appeal.\nThe history of the case is rather extensive. In 1984 William Robert Lee (Lee), represented by attorney Nathan Shefner (defendant-appellant herein), filed a complaint for an accounting and injunction against his sister, Susan Egan. In the complaint Lee alleged that funds his mother and grandmother obtained from the sale of certain real property had been fraudulently withheld from distribution upon his mother\u2019s death. Egan filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and for an award of attorney fees pursuant to section 2 \u2014 611 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 611.) The motion was granted and attorney fees in the amount of $1,875 were awarded.\nLee appealed the order dismissing his complaint and awarding attorney fees and petitioned the appellate court to issue an order staying the enforcement of the order awarding attorney fees pending the appeal. The stay was granted with the proviso that an appeal bond be filed with the court in the amount of $2,500. In response, Shefner entered into a surety bond contract with United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USF&G). An appeal bond was then posted in this court with USF&G as surety. The appeal bond stated, \u201cWe jointly and severally agree to pay [Egan\u2019s attorneys] any part of the award which is not reversed.\u201d Shefner signed the appeal bond for Lee and in his own name \u201cas principal.\u201d\nSubsequently, this court affirmed the dismissal of Lee\u2019s complaint and the award of attorney fees. (See Lee v. Egan (1987), 160 Ill. App. 3d 1078, 513 N.E.2d 1023.) Thereafter, Egan and her attorneys made a demand upon USF&G as surety on the appeal bond. On May 12, 1988, USF&G discharged its obligation and paid Egan\u2019s attorneys $2,477.93, which represents the full payment of the $1,875 judgment plus interest. USF&G then made a demand for reimbursement upon Shefner, but Shefner refused to pay. Consequently, USF&G filed a complaint in the circuit court of Cook County against Lee and Shefner to recover the monies it had expended. Lee, however, was apparently never served.\nShefner appeared on his own behalf and filed a motion to strike and dismiss the complaint, alleging that USF&G failed to state a cause of action against him. Shefner admitted in his memorandum to the court that USF&G paid $2,477.93 to Egan\u2019s attorneys based upon the bond that had been posted in Lee\u2019s appeal. However, Shefner alleged that the payment had been improper because the award of attorney fees had not been \u201creduced to judgment\u201d or \u201crecorded in the office of the Recorder of Deeds\u201d and thus \u201cwas meaningless insofar as creating a lien on real or personal property of William Robert Lee.\u201d\nOn November 30, 1989, the circuit court denied Shefner\u2019s motion to strike and dismiss the complaint and set the matter for trial on Decernber 14, 1989. Shefner failed to appear in court on that date and a default judgment was entered against him in the amount of $2,477.93 plus costs. On January 5, 1990, Shefner filed a motion to vacate the December 14, 1989, judgment against him, and on May 14, 1990, the motion was denied. In addition, the court continued to June 11, 1990, the hearing on USF&G\u2019s motion for attorney fees.\nOn June 4, 1990, Shefner filed a notice of appeal, stating that he was appealing \u201cfrom the ex party [sic] judgement entered on December 14,1989.\u201d\nIt is difficult to know where to begin when addressing this appeal. Although Shefner\u2019s notice of appeal indicates that he is appealing from the December 14 order, wherein the court entered a default judgment against him, he includes the order dated May 14, 1990, in his brief as the order appealed from. Also, in the notice of appeal, Shefner states that he seeks a reversal of the \u201corder appealed from,\u201d i.e., the order denying his motion to vacate, yet he never addresses the trial court\u2019s denial of the motion to vacate in his appeal.\nWe realize that a notice of appeal brings before the reviewing court the entire record and is to be liberally construed. However, when an appeal is taken from a specified judgment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction to review other judgments not specified in the notice of appeal. Outdoor Media, Inc. v. Village of Bellwood (1987), 162 Ill. App. 3d 1041, 516 N.E.2d 419.\nAssuming that we are being asked to consider the May 14 order denying Shefner\u2019s motion to vacate, we note that a trial court may, in its discretion, vacate any default at any time before final order or judgment is entered or set aside any final order or judgment upon petition filed within 30 days of its entry. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2\u2014 1301(e).) The moving party has the burden of establishing sufficient grounds to vacate a judgment, and the trial court\u2019s resolution of this matter will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Day v. Curtin (1989), 192 Ill. App. 3d 251, 254, 548 N.E.2d 670.\nIn this case Shefner failed to even attempt to demonstrate in what manner the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to vacate the judgment against him. Rather, Shefner disregarded the trial court\u2019s order on the motion to vacate altogether and merely presented his proposed defense to the complaint itself.\nFurthermore, Shefner\u2019s brief on appeal, under the heading \u201cPoints and Authorities,\u201d sets forth three items and lists two cases. However, the portion of the brief entitled \u201cArgument,\u201d which is less than two pages in length, makes no reference to the three proposed \u201cpoints\u201d and cites no case law. The statement of facts contains no referenees to pages of the record on appeal, contains copies of orders rather than a summary of their content and directs this court to make \u201ca part hereof\u201d several documents contained within the record. We believe that this brief fails to meet the minimum standard requirements of Supreme Court Rule 341(e) (134 Ill. 2d R. 341(e)) and would warrant the striking of Shefner\u2019s brief and dismissal of the appeal.\nNevertheless, it is also apparent from the record that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal since Shefner has appealed from a nonfinal order which does not contain the language necessary under Supreme Court Rule 304(a) for making nonfinal orders appealable. 134 Ill. 2d R. 304(a).\nShefner appealed from the May 14, 1990, order denying his motion to vacate the default entered against him on December 14, 1989. A copy of the December 14, 1989, order is not contained within the record. However, it is clear from the record that the default judgment entered on this date decided only the issue of Shefner\u2019s liability on the surety bond. The court did not determine the amount of damages to which USF&G was entitled. On May 14, 1989, the trial court had still not assessed the amount of damages due USF&G. In addition to denying Shefner\u2019s motion to vacate, the May 14, 1990, order granted USF&G a continuance for a prove up on the issue of attorney fees, an element of damages claimed by USF&G in its complaint. Consequently, all of the claims had not yet been disposed of and no final order yet existed from which Shefner could appeal.\nAppeal from a nonfinal order is governed by Supreme Court Rule 304(a). A nonfinal order must contain the special ruling that there is no just cause to delay enforcement or appeal of the judgment to become appealable. This court is not vested with jurisdiction to consider an appeal of a nonfinal order which does not contain this language (Raglin v. HMO Illinois, Inc. (1991), 217 Ill. App. 3d 1076, 578 N.E.2d 108), and failure to obtain the necessary language makes it encumbent upon this court to dismiss the appeal.\nBecause Shefner has appealed from a nonfinal order which does not contain the necessary language set forth in Rule 304(a), we dismiss the appeal.\nAppeal dismissed.\nMcNULTY, P.J., and GORDON, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE MURRAY" } ], "attorneys": [ "Nathan Shefner, of Chicago, appellant pro se.", "Gary J. Matejcak, of Mathews, Jackson & Hollywood, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM ROBERT LEE, Defendant (Nathan Shefner, Defendant-Appellant).\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 1\u201490\u20141596\nOpinion filed June 5,1992.\nNathan Shefner, of Chicago, appellant pro se.\nGary J. Matejcak, of Mathews, Jackson & Hollywood, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0635-01", "first_page_order": 655, "last_page_order": 658 }