{ "id": 564619, "name": "SUCCESS NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SPECIALIST EYE CARE CENTER, S.C., et al., Defendants (Steven R. Friedman et al., Intervenors-Appellants)", "name_abbreviation": "Success National Bank v. Specialist Eye Care Center", "decision_date": "1999-04-19", "docket_number": "No. 2\u201498\u20140218", "first_page": "74", "last_page": "77", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "304 Ill. App. 3d 74" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "413 Ill. 610", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5313549 ], "year": 1953, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "613-14", "parenthetical": "taxpayers denied leave to intervene in suit for the distribution of a school district's assets; taxpayers lacked standing to appeal from the trial court's final decree involving the ultimate disposition of the assets" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/413/0610-01" ] }, { "cite": "147 Ill. App. 3d 692", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3604387 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "699", "parenthetical": "petition to intervene denied, and party lacked standing to appeal the propriety of a judgment order" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/147/0692-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 Ill. App. 3d 873", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3202756 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "878" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/84/0873-01" ] }, { "cite": "213 Ill. App. 3d 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2605415 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "314", "parenthetical": "school district was not party to appeal because trial court improperly granted leave to intervene" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/213/0309-01" ] }, { "cite": "223 Ill. 271", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3336157 ], "year": 1906, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "272-73", "parenthetical": "appellant was not party to suit where appellant filed a petition to intervene but failed to obtain an order granting the petition" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/223/0271-01" ] }, { "cite": "164 Ill. App. 3d 183", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3583348 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "187" }, { "page": "187", "parenthetical": "when State's Attorney was not named as a party and made no formal effort to intervene, he came before the appellate court as a nonparty" }, { "page": "187" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/164/0183-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 352, "char_count": 5882, "ocr_confidence": 0.747, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.698280215180907e-08, "percentile": 0.4930731482800735 }, "sha256": "81fb6b00f8ef3a6e4737041f97079e064815e337aeac088f59f4cfbee4c91ce7", "simhash": "1:1b38484e7e1f79f5", "word_count": 934 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:20:24.702805+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "SUCCESS NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SPECIALIST EYE CARE CENTER, S.C., et al., Defendants (Steven R. Friedman et al., Intervenors-Appellants)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE COLWELL\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nSteven R. and Marci L. Friedman (the Friedmans), parties who petitioned to intervene in this action but never received a ruling on their petition, appeal from the circuit court of Lake County\u2019s February 17, 1998, order of clarification. Defendants, The Specialist Eye Care Center, S.C., and Dr. Debra Anne Koloms, are not parties to this appeal.\nPlaintiff, Success National Bank, filed a motion to dismiss the Friedmans\u2019 appeal, arguing that the Friedmans lack standing to bring this appeal, and we ordered that motion taken with the case. Because the Friedmans lack standing, we dismiss this appeal.\nOn December 4, 1996, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants (confession case); defendants confessed judgment (see 735 ILCS 5/2\u2014 1301(c) (West 1996)), and the trial court entered a judgment order. Plaintiff had sought $106,866.29 in damages according to the terms of a $100,000 promissory note executed by defendants on December 24, 1995.\nAlso on December 4, 1996, plaintiff issued summons to confirm the confessed judgment (confirmation proceeding). On December 9, 1996, defendants filed an appearance.\nOn January 6, 1998, the Friedmans filed a petition to intervene. The Friedmans were purchasers of real estate against which plaintiff claimed to have a judgment lien based on the judgment by confession. Plaintiff foreclosed on that judgment lien in another related matter now on appeal. See Success National Bank v. Dunne, Nos. 2\u201498\u20140219, 2\u201498\u20140220. The trial court never ruled on the Friedmans\u2019 petition.\nOn January 14, 1998, the trial court granted plaintiffs oral motion to voluntarily dismiss the confirmation proceeding against Dr. Debra Anne Koloms. The order provided: \u201cThe confirmation proceeding against Dr. Debra Anne Koloms is dismissed with prejudice, as is this cause in general, without prejudice to [plaintiff\u2019s] position that all such proceedings have previously been concluded, as argued in 97 CH 677.\u201d\nOn February 13, 1998, plaintiff filed a motion to clarify. On February 17, 1998, the trial court entered an order of clarification clarifying its January 14, 1998, order. The court indicated that it did not intend to modify or vacate the judgment by confession but rather intended to make clear that the confession case was concluded. As a result, the trial court provided that the clause \u201cas is this case [sic] in general\u201d should read \u201cand this cause in general is fully concluded.\u201d On February 19, 1998, the Friedmans filed a notice of appeal appealing the trial court\u2019s February 17, 1998, clarification order.\nThe Friedmans were not original parties to the confession case, and the trial court never made the Friedmans parties to that case. While the Friedmans filed a petition to intervene, the trial court never ruled on that petition, and the law does not recognize intervention by implication (In re Special Prosecutor, 164 Ill. App. 3d 183, 187 (1987)). As a result, the Friedmans were not parties when the trial court entered the clarification order. Therefore, the Friedmans come before this court as nonparties. See In re Special Prosecutor, 164 Ill. App. 3d at 187 (when State\u2019s Attorney was not named as a party and made no formal effort to intervene, he came before the appellate court as a nonparty); see also Scott v. Great Western Coal & Coke Co., 223 Ill. 271, 272-73 (1906) (appellant was not party to suit where appellant filed a petition to intervene but failed to obtain an order granting the petition); Lake County Forest Preserve District v. First National Bank, 213 Ill. App. 3d 309, 314 (1991) (school district was not party to appeal because trial court improperly granted leave to intervene).\nTo have standing to bring an appeal, a nonparty must have a \u201c \u2018direct, immediate, and substantial interest in the subject matter, which would be prejudiced by the judgment or benefited by its reversal.\u2019 \u201d In re Special Prosecutor, 164 Ill. App. 3d at 187, quoting Marcheschi v. PI. Corp., 84 Ill. App. 3d 873, 878 (1980). Here, neither the confession case nor the related confirmation proceeding and clarification order adjudicated any direct, immediate, or substantial interests of the Friedmans. The subject matter of the confession case concerned the promissory note between plaintiff and defendants. The Friedmans were not parties to that contract. In addition, the judgment by confession only provided plaintiff with the opportunity to file a judgment lien and seek the foreclosure of that lien. Plaintiff, however, could have elected not to file a judgment lien or seek foreclosure, and, consequently, the Friedmans would never have been affected by the confessed judgment. Therefore, the Friedmans\u2019 interest in this case is indirect, contingent, and tenuous. Accordingly, the Fried-mans have no standing to appeal from the trial court\u2019s clarification order. See In re Marriage of Perkinson, 147 Ill. App. 3d 692, 699 (1986) (petition to intervene denied, and party lacked standing to appeal the propriety of a judgment order); see also Strader v. Board of Education of Community Unit School District No. 1, 413 Ill. 610, 613-14 (1953) (taxpayers denied leave to intervene in suit for the distribution of a school district\u2019s assets; taxpayers lacked standing to appeal from the trial court\u2019s final decree involving the ultimate disposition of the assets).\nBased on the foregoing, we dismiss the Friedmans\u2019 appeal.\nAppeal dismissed.\nTHOMAS and RAPB JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE COLWELL" } ], "attorneys": [ "James J. Babowice and John H. Krackenberger, both of Griffith, Jacobson & Babowice, of Waukegan, for appellants.", "Keevan D. Morgan and Rakesh Khanna, both of Morgan & Bley, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "SUCCESS NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SPECIALIST EYE CARE CENTER, S.C., et al., Defendants (Steven R. Friedman et al., Intervenors-Appellants).\nSecond District\nNo. 2\u201498\u20140218\nOpinion filed April 19, 1999.\nJames J. Babowice and John H. Krackenberger, both of Griffith, Jacobson & Babowice, of Waukegan, for appellants.\nKeevan D. Morgan and Rakesh Khanna, both of Morgan & Bley, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0074-01", "first_page_order": 92, "last_page_order": 95 }