Browning, Ekelton Division v. Williams

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois
DecidedMarch 25, 2004
Docket1-02-1983, 1-03-1061 cons. Rel
StatusPublished

This text of Browning, Ekelton Division v. Williams (Browning, Ekelton Division v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Browning, Ekelton Division v. Williams, (Ill. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

FOURTH DIVISION

MARCH 25, 2004

1-02-1983)

1-03-1061) Cons.

BROWNING, EKELTON DIVISION,       ) Appeal from the

a corporation, ) Circuit Court of

) Cook County.

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellant, )

)

v. )

DON WILLIAMS, ) Honorable

) Claudia Conlon

Defendant/Counterplaintiff-Appellee. ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HARTMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

This is the third appeal involving these parties. (See Browning, Ekelton Division v. Williams , 256 Ill. App. 3d 299, 305-07, 628 N.E.2d 878 (1993) ( Browning I ); and Browning, Ekelton Division v. Williams , Nos. 1-98-3846, 1-99-1209 (August 2, 2001) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23) ( Browning II )).  In the instant appeal, plaintiff/counterdefendant, Browning Corporation (Browning), appeals from the circuit court's order granting defendant/counterplaintiff, Don Williams, post-judgment interest accruing from the original judgment date.   Browning I and Browning II presented the relevant facts in the instant case and, therefore, only those facts pertinent to this appeal follow.

On April 4, 1991, a jury trial on damages was held, in which Williams was awarded $3.525 million against Browning.  Browning did not appeal the award; instead, on July 15, 1991, Browning filed a request, pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2002) (section 2-1401)), to vacate the damage award.  On December 17, 1991, the circuit court granted Browning's section 2-1401 petition and Williams appealed.  This court held that the circuit court could not vacate judgment without holding an evidentiary hearing.   Browning I , 256 Ill. App. 3d at 305-07.  After a full evidentiary hearing on remand, the circuit court granted Browning's section 2-1401 petition.  Williams again appealed, and this court reversed the order vacating the damage award and reinstated the original $3.525 million judgment.   Browning II , at 8.  On April 23, 2002, the circuit court ordered Browning to pay Williams post-judgment interest accruing from the original judgment date of April 4, 1991. (footnote: 1)  Browning timely appeals.

On appeal, Browning questions only whether post-judgment interest may accrue from the original judgment date of April 4, 1991.  Williams has failed to file a response brief on time; nevertheless, this court elects to consider the appeal on its merits.   First Capitol Mortagage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp. , 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133, 345 N.E.2d 493 (1976).  Williams' motion for leave to file relevant authorities, taken with the case, is granted.

Browning argues the original judgment was in effect only (1) from April 4, 1991, the original judgment date, through December 17, 1991, when the circuit court granted Browning's request for relief from judgment; and (2) from August 2, 2001, when the original judgment was reinstated, until present.  At all other times, Browning claims, "the judgment was unenforceable and void" and "there was no reason to pay Williams, because no judgment existed."

Under section 2-1303 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1303 (West 2002) (section 2-1303) , "[j]udgments recovered in any court shall draw interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the judgment until satisfied ***." (footnote: 2)  The legislature did not vest the circuit court with discretion in assessing interest under section 2-1303; rather, the imposition of statutory interest, at the rate of 9% from the date the final judgment was entered, is mandatory.   Longo v. Globe Auto Recycling , 318 Ill. App. 3d 1028, 1039, 743 N.E.2d 667 (2001).  

An award of interest on a money judgment requires that the amount of money to be paid was certain, and the judgment debtor enjoyed the improper use of the money during the period for which interest is to be awarded.   Bank of Chicago v. Park National Bank , 277 Ill. App. 3d 167, 174, 660 N.E.2d 19 (1995).   Section 2-1303 entitles a judgment creditor to draw interest on the judgment during the pendency of an appeal ( Niemeyer v. Wendy's International , 336 Ill. App. 3d 112, 115, 782 N.E.2d 784 (2002) ( Niemeyer ), even where it is the judgment creditor who seeks on appeal to correct errors regarding the judgment .   Pinkstaff v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co. , 31 Ill. 2d 518, 524, 202 N.E.2d 512 (1964) ( Pinkstaff ).  A judgment debtor may, however, halt the accrual of interest by tendering payment of the judgment, costs and interest accrued.   Niemeyer , 336 Ill. App. 3d at 115.

An appeal is a continuation of the proceedings ( 134 Ill. 2d R. 301 ) and, until either the time to appeal has expired or, where an appeal is being pursued, until the court of review has rendered a decision, the circuit court's judgment is not a final adjudication.   Bates v. Board of Education , 136 Ill. 2d 260, 269, 555 N.E.2d 1 (1990) ( Bates ) .  Unlike an appeal , however, a section 2-1401 petition, although filed in the same proceeding, is the commencement of a new cause of action and is not a continuation of the proceeding in which the prior judgment was entered.   Village of Island Lake v. Parkway Bank & Trust Co. , 212 Ill. App. 3d 115, 120, 569 N.E.2d 1362 (1991) ( Village of Island Lake ).  

In the case sub judice , the amount of the award against Browning was fixed and definite as of April 4, 1991, at which time monetary damages became due.  Browning did not tender payment at that time nor did it appeal from the award.  Once Browning's time to appeal expired, the award became a final adjudication.   Bates , 136 Ill. 2d at 269 .  Although the circuit court subsequently vacated the original judgment, this commenced a new cause of action; it was not a continuation of the proceeding in which the April 4, 1991 judgment was entered .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bank of Chicago v. Park National Bank
660 N.E.2d 19 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1995)
Longo v. Globe Auto Recycling, Inc.
743 N.E.2d 667 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2001)
Niemeyer v. Wendy's International, Inc.
782 N.E.2d 774 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2002)
People v. Cowans
782 N.E.2d 779 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2002)
Bates v. Board of Education
555 N.E.2d 1 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1990)
Kramer v. Mount Carmel Shelter Care Facility, Inc.
750 N.E.2d 757 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2001)
Village of Island Lake v. Parkway Bank & Trust Co.
569 N.E.2d 1362 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1991)
Pinkstaff v. Pennsylvania Railroad
202 N.E.2d 512 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1964)
First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp.
345 N.E.2d 493 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1976)
Browning, Ektelon Division v. Williams
628 N.E.2d 878 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Browning, Ekelton Division v. Williams, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/browning-ekelton-division-v-williams-illappct-2004.