{ "id": 4273759, "name": "EIGHTEEN INVESTMENTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONSCREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Eighteen Investments, Inc. v. Nationscredit Financial Services Corp.", "decision_date": "2007-09-28", "docket_number": "No. 1-06-3122", "first_page": "527", "last_page": "536", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "376 Ill. App. 3d 527" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "295 Ill. App. 3d 844", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 45769 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "864" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/295/0844-01" ] }, { "cite": "339 Ill. App. 3d 669", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2468308 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "675" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/339/0669-01" ] }, { "cite": "366 Ill. App. 3d 804", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4264076 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "818" }, { "page": "818" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/366/0804-01" ] }, { "cite": "371 Ill. App. 3d 1103", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4268809 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1110" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/371/1103-01" ] }, { "cite": "131 Ill. 2d 145", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5570227 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "160", "parenthetical": "quoted in Lakeshore Decaro v. M. Felix, Inc., 371 Ill. App. 3d 1103, 1110 (2007), Fortech, L.L.C. v. R.W. Dunteman Co., 366 Ill. App. 3d 804, 818 (2006), and Adams v. American International Group, Inc., 339 Ill. App. 3d 669, 675 (2003)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/131/0145-01" ] }, { "cite": "257 Ill. App. 3d 372", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2890429 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "375" }, { "page": "375" }, { "page": "382-83" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/257/0372-01" ] }, { "cite": "372 Ill. App. 3d 362", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4269869 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "369" }, { "page": "367" }, { "page": "368" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/372/0362-01" ] }, { "cite": "184 Ill. 2d 290", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 926988 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "302" }, { "page": "310-11" }, { "page": "311" }, { "page": "311" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/184/0290-01" ] }, { "cite": "209 Ill. 2d 520", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5462174 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "533" }, { "page": "533" }, { "page": "534" }, { "page": "533" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/209/0520-01" ] }, { "cite": "197 Ill. 2d 381", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 259082 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "389" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/197/0381-01" ] }, { "cite": "223 Ill. 2d 49", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3604629 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "59" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/223/0049-01" ] }, { "cite": "371 Ill. App. 3d 797", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4268903 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "801", "parenthetical": "\"When a trial court grants summary judgment, we review de novo\"" }, { "page": "801" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/371/0797-01" ] }, { "cite": "221 Ill. 2d 558", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5703617 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "579", "parenthetical": "under section 2 - 619, \"our standard of review is de novo\"" }, { "page": "579" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/221/0558-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 802, "char_count": 20730, "ocr_confidence": 0.757, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.225430336580363e-08, "percentile": 0.3296039653277083 }, "sha256": "c1aac7dc37e63f01a5435e12f5049ac24c3b9afb26fe20415872d4540cd00f95", "simhash": "1:9bab9c360308be45", "word_count": 3448 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:46:29.545992+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "EIGHTEEN INVESTMENTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONSCREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE ROBERT E. GORDON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant NationsCredit Financial Services Corp. foreclosed on a mortgage on a residential property, and plaintiff Eighteen Investments, Inc., purchased the property at the judicial sale for $100,000. The circuit court of Cook County entered an order confirming the sale on March 14, 2002.\nHowever, there were problems with title: the mortgage listed the wrong property index number (PIN) and the wrong lot number; the deed from the judicial sale also listed the wrong lot number; and a release for the mortgage had already been recorded. Plaintiff then filed a motion in the foreclosure action to vacate the judicial order confirming the sale on the ground that the mortgage had already been released. The trial court denied the motion.\nOn January 13, 2005, plaintiff then filed the complaint in this action alleging unjust enrichment, as well as claims for rescission and declaratory judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the unjust enrichment claim and dismissed the remaining claims on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel. For the reasons discussed below, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nBACKGROUND\nEighteen Investments is a Missouri corporation that purchases commercial and residential investment properties, including foreclosure properties. NationsCredit is a North Carolina corporation that was formerly a subsidiary of NationsBank Corporation and is now a subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation. NationsCredit issues real estate loans directly to applicants purchasing residential properties and also purchases real estate loan pools from other lenders.\nThe subject property is located at 2644 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois. The correct PIN is 16 \u2014 13\u2014209\u2014025, and the correct lot number is 36. The incorrect PIN listed on the subject mortgage was 16 \u2014 13\u201420\u2014025 (missing a \u201c9\u201d), and the incorrect lot number listed on both the subject mortgage and judicial sale deed was 16 (with a \u201c1\u201d instead of a \u201c3\u201d).\nOn July 23, 1999, the Greater Midwest Real Estate Group sold the property to Eric Pollards in a deed that listed the wrong lot number, lot 16, instead of 36. On the same day, Pollards executed the subject mortgage for the benefit of the defendant which, as previously noted, listed both the wrong lot number and the wrong PIN. Defendant also purchased title insurance from First American Title Insurance Company.\nOn October 15, 1999, a release for this mortgage was recorded. In its brief to this court, defendant claimed that the trial court in the foreclosure action found this release to be a forgery and void. However, it is not clear from the record that the foreclosure court made such a finding. The foreclosure court\u2019s order dated May 1, 2003, denied plaintiffs motion to vacate \u201cpursuant to the Court\u2019s ruling as read into the record this 1st day of May, 2003.\u201d The transcript of the proceedings was not made part of the appellate record, so we do not know what the foreclosure court \u201cread into the record\u201d on May 1. The parties must have been unclear as well, since plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to clarify by declaring the release \u201cnull and void.\u201d However, the appellate record does not contain such a declaration. At the summary judgment hearing in this action, the trial court stated that the \u201crelease is off the table\u201d since the foreclosure court had declined to enforce the release; and in response, plaintiffs attorney disputed that the foreclosure court had made \u201ca specific finding as to whether or not the release was valid.\u201d Thus, despite defendant\u2019s declaration in its appellate brief that the release was a forgery, that fact is not established by the record filed on appeal.\nOn October 15, 1999, the same day that the release was recorded, Pollards executed a mortgage for the benefit of Funding Network, Inc. On March 20, 1999, Pollards conveyed the subject property to Percy Doss, and Doss executed a mortgage for the benefit of Creve Coeur Mortgage Associates. On July 7, 2000, Creve Coeur assigned the Doss mortgage to First Union.\nThe deed to Doss, the Doss mortgage and the assignment to First Union all listed the wrong lot number, lot 16. However, on January 9, 2001, Creve Coeur re-recorded its mortgage with the incorrect lot number crossed out and the correct lot number inserted in its place. On January 10, 2001, Creve Coeur did the same for the assignment to First Union.\nOn March 19, 2001, Betty Hinton purchased the subject property at a judicial sale, after First Union foreclosed on the Doss mortgage. On August 9, 2001, Hinton conveyed the property to her grandson, Kenyatta Land. The deed to Hinton used both the correct lot number and the correct PIN.\nOn June 13, 2001, defendant filed a complaint to foreclose the subject mortgage. The mortgage foreclosure action included as parties Doss and First Union, but not Betty Hinton or Kenyatta Land. On February 8, 2002, plaintiff purchased the subject property at a judicial sale for $100,000. On March 14, 2002, the foreclosure court entered an order confirming the sale. Both the deed from the judicial sale and the order confirming the sale listed the wrong lot number.\nOn April 15, 2002, plaintiff filed a motion in the foreclosure action to vacate the order approving the sale. In the motion, plaintiff claimed that after the order was entered confirming the sale, a visit to the subject property disclosed that Land was living there and claimed to be the owner. After receiving this information, plaintiff reviewed the real property records and found the release of the subject mortgage. Plaintiff\u2019s motion claimed the order should be vacated on the grounds of the prior release and defendant\u2019s failure to name other parties who had an interest in the subject property; however, the motion made no mention of the incorrect lot number or PIN. After an evidentiary hearing, the motion was denied in an order dated May 1, 2003.\nOn January 13, 2005, plaintiff filed the complaint in this action seeking to recover the $100,000 it had paid to defendant. The complaint alleged four counts: count I, rescission based on mutual mistake; count II, unjust enrichment; count III, rescission based on fraud; and count IX/ a declaratory judgment that plaintiff had a superior claim to title over any other party. The basis for these counts was the incorrect lot number and PIN. The named defendants included Land, Hinton, Pollards and First American Title Company. However, Land, Pollards and Hinton were never served with a summons and complaint; and plaintiff voluntarily dismissed First American Title Company without prejudice.\nDefendant moved to dismiss pursuant to section 2 \u2014 619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 619 (West 2006)) based on res judicata and collateral estoppel, claiming that the foreclosure court\u2019s denial of plaintiffs motion to vacate barred this subsequent action. On June 17, 2005, the trial court granted the motion with respect to all counts but count II, the unjust enrichment claim.\nAfter discovery was complete, the parties filed a joint statement of stipulated facts, as well as separate motions for summary judgment. On September 28, 2006, after argument by counsel, the trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff\u2019s motion. The trial court\u2019s written order also stated that \u201c[pllaintiff non-suits its claims against [defendants Kenyatta Land, Eric Pollard, [and] Betty Hinton.\u201d\nPlaintiff appeals both the trial court\u2019s prior dismissal of counts I, III and TV, as well as its subsequent grant of defendant\u2019s summary judgment motion. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.\nANALYSIS\nPlaintiff claims that the trial court erred in dismissing counts I, III and IV on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds because this action is based on the wrong PIN and lot number, while the prior motion to vacate was based on the mortgage release. Plaintiff also claims that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on plaintiffs unjust enrichment since plaintiff received an allegedly worthless deed and defendant could make a claim on its title insurance policy. The standard of review on appeal for both the dismissal and summary judgment motions is de novo. Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co., 221 Ill. 2d 558, 579 (2006) (under section 2 \u2014 619, \u201cour standard of review is de novo\u201d); Ramirez v. Smart Corp., 371 Ill. App. 3d 797, 801 (2007) (\u201cWhen a trial court grants summary judgment, we review de novo\u201d).\nSection 2 \u2014 619 Dismissal Motion\nThe trial court properly granted defendant\u2019s dismissal motion. The Illinois Supreme Court has stated that \u201c[a] motion to dismiss, pursuant to section 2 \u2014 619 of the Code, admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs\u2019 complaint, but asserts an affirmative defense or other matter that avoids or defeats the plaintiffs claim.\u201d DeLuna v. Burciaga, 223 Ill. 2d 49, 59 (2006); Solaia Technology v. Specialty Publishing Co., 221 Ill. 2d 558, 579 (2006).\nA section 2 \u2014 619 motion is permitted only on nine listed grounds:\n\u201c(1) That the court does not have jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action, provided that the defect cannot be removed by a transfer of the case to a court having jurisdiction.\n(2) That the plaintiff does not have a legal capacity to sue or that the defendant does not have the legal capacity to be sued.\n(3) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause.\n(4) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment.\n(5) That the action was not commenced within the time limited by law.\n(6) That the claim set forth in the plaintiffs pleading has been released, satisfied of record, or discharged in bankruptcy.\n(7) That the claim asserted is unenforceable under the provisions of the Statute of Frauds.\n(8) That the claim asserted against defendant is unenforceable because of his or her minority or other disability.\n(9) That the claim asserted against defendant is barred by other affirmative matter avoiding the legal effect of or defeating the claim.\u201d 735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 619(a) (West 2006).\nIn the case at bar, the subject matter of defendant\u2019s dismissal motion falls into one of the categories permitted by section 2 \u2014 619: \u201c(4) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment.\u201d 735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 619(a)(4) (West 2006). In its order dated June 17, 2005, the trial court dismissed counts I, III and IV of the complaint pursuant to section 2 \u2014 619 without stating the reasons for the dismissal. However, defendant had moved to dismiss on the ground that the prior foreclosure judgment barred the complaint, based on the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Thus, the limitations of section 2 \u2014 619 are satisfied.\nDismissal based on res judicata was proper. \u201cThe doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies, and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand or cause of action.\u201d Nowak v. St. Rita High School, 197 Ill. 2d 381, 389 (2001); Arvia v. Madigan, 209 Ill. 2d 520, 533 (2004). \u201cFor the doctrine of res judicata to apply, the following three requirements must be satisfied: (1) there was a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) there is an identity of cause of action, and (3) there is an identity of parties or their privies.\u201d River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 184 Ill. 2d 290, 302 (1998). In the case at bar, there is no dispute that the foreclosure court was a court of competent jurisdiction, that it rendered a final judgment and that the identical parties in this action were also parties in the prior action. Thus, the only issue with respect to res judicata is whether the two actions involved the same cause of action.\nThe bar with respect to the same cause of action is \u201cdesigned to prevent a multiplicity of lawsuits between the same parties where the facts and the issues are the same.\u201d Dalan/Jupiter, Inc. v. Draper & Kramer, Inc., 372 Ill. App. 3d 362, 369 (2007). It \u201cpromotes judicial economy\u201d and \u201cprotects parties\u201d from being forced to relitigate \u201cessentially the same case.\u201d Arvia, 209 Ill. 2d at 533. \u201cSimply stated,\u201d it \u201cprevents a party from taking two bites out of the same apple.\u201d Arvia, 209 Ill. 2d at 534.\nTo determine whether causes of action are the same, the Illinois Supreme Court adopted the transactional test in River Park, 184 Ill. 2d at 310-11. The supreme court held that \u201cseparate claims will be considered the same cause of action for purposes of res judicata if they arise from a single group of operative facts, regardless of whether they assert different theories of relief.\u201d River Park, 184 Ill. 2d at 311. The supreme court stated that \u201cthe transactional test permits claims to be considered part of the same cause of action even if there is not a substantial overlap of evidence, so long as they arise from the same transaction.\u201d River Park, 184 Ill. 2d at 311.\nPlaintiff\u2019s claims in this case are barred because they arise from the \u201csame transaction\u201d as the claim raised in its prior motion to vacate in the mortgage foreclosure action. The transaction that gave birth to both was the judicial sale at which plaintiff purchased the subject property.\nNonetheless, plaintiff claims that the \u201coperative facts\u201d in the two actions are different, because in the prior action it chose to move only on the basis of the mortgage release, while in this action it has chosen to move only on the basis of the wrong PIN and lot number. However, the Illinois Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of res judicata \u201cextends to all matters, that were offered to sustain or defeat the claim in the first action, as well as all matters that could have been offered for that purpose.\u201d Arvia, 209 Ill. 2d at 533; see also Balan/Jupiter, 372 Ill. App. 3d at 367.\nPlaintiff could have offered the wrong PIN and lot number as a basis to defeat the claim in the first action, but it failed to do so. As plaintiff\u2019s attorney candidly admitted during oral argument on the summary judgment motion, the wrong numbers were \u201can issue that wasn\u2019t raised that should have been raised\u201d in the first action. Plaintiffs failure to offer all the possible facts in the first action that could have vacated the judicial sale does not give plaintiff another \u201cbite at the apple.\u201d Balan/Jupiter, 372 Ill. App. 3d at 368. Thus, the trial court was correct in dismissing counts I, III and IV since they were barred by the doctrine of res judicata.\nLike the case at bar, in Mountain States Mortgage Center; Inc. v. Allen, 257 Ill. App. 3d 372 (1993), the doctrine of res judicata was applied to a judicial sale. In Mountain States, the plaintiff claimed that its mortgage had priority over the defendant\u2019s mortgage. The trial court denied plaintiffs claim, held that the defendant was the primary creditor and entered a judgment of foreclosure. Mountain States, 257 Ill. App. 3d at 375. Subsequently, plaintiff filed an amended complaint claiming that it was the primary creditor based on an entirely different set of facts, namely that it held yet another mortgage on the same property. Mountain States, 257 Ill. App. 3d at 375. The appellate court held that pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, the amended complaint represented a second bite at the same apple and was thus barred. Mountain States, 257 Ill. App. 3d at 382-83. Similarly, in the case at bar, raising the wrong PIN and lot number was simply a second attempt by plaintiff to undo the same judicial sale based on facts that could have been raised previously but were not.\nSince the trial court\u2019s dismissal order was proper based on res judicata, this court need not address collateral estoppel, which was an alternative basis put forth by the defendant in support of the dismissal order.\nSummary Judgment Motion\nThe trial court properly granted defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs unjust enrichment claim. When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, this court has recently stated:\n\u201cSummary judgment is a drastic method of disposing of litigation. It is proper only when the pleadings, depositions, and admissions clearly demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [Citations.] In reviewing an order for summary judgment, all of the facts must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. [Citation.] Thus, on examination of the record, if it can be fairly stated that a triable issue of fact exists, the motion should be denied.\u201d Ramirez, 371 Ill. App. 3d at 801.\nSince none of the facts with respect to the unjust enrichment claim were in dispute and the parties submitted a joint stipulated record, the claim was properly decided on cross-motions for summary judgment.\nThe Illinois Supreme Court has held \u201c[t]o state a cause of action based on a theory of unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has unjustly retained a benefit to the plaintiffs detriment, and that defendant\u2019s retention of the benefit violates the fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.\u201d HPI Health Care Services, Inc. v. Mt. Vernon Hospital, Inc., 131 Ill. 2d 145, 160 (1989) (quoted in Lakeshore Decaro v. M. Felix, Inc., 371 Ill. App. 3d 1103, 1110 (2007), Fortech, L.L.C. v. R.W. Dunteman Co., 366 Ill. App. 3d 804, 818 (2006), and Adams v. American International Group, Inc., 339 Ill. App. 3d 669, 675 (2003)). A \u201c \u2018cause of action based upon unjust enrichment does not require fault or illegality on the part of [the] defendants; the essence of the cause of action is that one party is enriched and it would be unjust for the party to retain the enrichment.\u2019 \u201d Fortech, 366 Ill. App. 3d at 818, quoting Stathis v. Geldermann, Inc., 295 Ill. App. 3d 844, 864 (1998).\nDefendant\u2019s retention of the judicial sale money is not unjust. Defendant lent money and its loan was not paid, and so it foreclosed simply to receive back the money it was owed. When the trial court granted defendant\u2019s summary judgment motion, it stated: \u201cNobody says NationsCredit didn\u2019t shell out money in return for getting the mortgage. As a result of the judicial sale, it got its mortgage paid ***.\u201d Getting a mortgage paid is not unjust.\nThis is not a case of unjust enrichment but a case of mistake. Both parties relied on a wrong PIN and lot number. Both parties, which are in the real estate business, failed to conduct an adequate title search that would have revealed their error. As the trial court stated, \u201c[i]f Eighteen Investments chose, in effect, to make the same mistake NationsCredit did, then it is difficult to see why NationsCredit as opposed to Eighteen Investments should suffer or why the Court should exercise its equitable power to move the loss from Eighteen Investments to NationsCredit.\u201d\nPlaintiff claims the circuit court should exercise its equitable power to move the loss to defendant from plaintiff because defendant has title insurance and plaintiff does not. In essence, plaintiff asks the circuit court to give plaintiff the benefit of defendant\u2019s title insurance and leave the title insurance company holding the bag. However, plaintiff has not cited a single case to support the proposition that a circuit court should wield its equitable power against an entity that plaintiff voluntarily dismissed as a party.\nCONCLUSION\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgement of the trial court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nMcBRIDE, Ed., and GARCIA, J., concur.\nIn support of its claim in its appellate brief that the foreclosure court found the release to be a forgery, the defendant cited to page 020 in \u201cVolume 5, Supplemental Record.\u201d However, there were only two volumes of supplemental record filed.\nDuring oral argument concerning the motions for summary judgment, plaintiffs counsel stated: \u201cUnfortunately, I did not represent the [sic] plaintiffs Eighteen Investments in that property proceeding. Unfortunately, that argument, your Honor, as far as the pin and the legal description was not raised. *** And there\u2019s our quandary, your Honor. It was an issue that wasn\u2019t raised that should have been raised.\u201d", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE ROBERT E. GORDON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Marcus Perres & Boxerman, LLP, of Chicago (Michael J. Boxerman, of counsel), for appellant.", "Dykema Gossett PLLC, of Chicago (Rosa M. Tumialan and Julie C. Keller, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "EIGHTEEN INVESTMENTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONSCREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 1 \u2014 06\u20143122\nOpinion filed September 28, 2007.\nMarcus Perres & Boxerman, LLP, of Chicago (Michael J. Boxerman, of counsel), for appellant.\nDykema Gossett PLLC, of Chicago (Rosa M. Tumialan and Julie C. Keller, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0527-01", "first_page_order": 545, "last_page_order": 554 }