Midland Credit Management, Inc. v. Lake

2025 IL App (1st) 241056-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: June 23, 2025
• Docket: 1-24-1056
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2025 IL App (1st) 241056-U No. 1-24-1056 Order filed June 23, 2025 First Division

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 22 M3 4251 ) RICHARD LAKE, ) Honorable ) Martin C. Kelley, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE COBBS delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Lavin and Pucinski concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction where the subject orders are not final and appealable.

¶2 Defendant Richard Lake appeals pro se from the trial court’s orders that granted the motion

of plaintiff Midland Credit Management, Inc., to voluntarily dismiss its debt collection action

without prejudice pursuant to section 2-1009 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS

5/2-1009 (West 2022)) and denied defendant’s motion for damages and costs. On appeal, No. 1-24-1056

defendant argues that the trial court erred by (1) granting plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss

the action without prejudice prior to ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss the action with

prejudice and (2) failing to grant defendant’s motion for damages and costs. We dismiss this appeal

for lack of jurisdiction.

¶3 The record on appeal does not contain a report of proceedings or substitute therefor. The

following background is derived from the common law record.

¶4 On July 25, 2022, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant seeking damages of

$2,533.70 and costs for failure to pay a credit card debt. Plaintiff asserted that it was the successor

to the original creditor and attached copies of defendant’s credit card statement, the bill of sale for

the credit card debt, and an affidavit from one of plaintiff’s employees attesting to plaintiff’s

ownership of the debt.

¶5 On June 21, 2023, the trial court entered an order finding defendant in default and

continuing the case for prove-up.

¶6 On July 19, 2023, defendant filed a motion to vacate the default judgment. The record on

appeal does not reflect the court’s disposition of the motion. In his brief on appeal, defendant states

that the trial court granted his motion to vacate the default judgment on July 21, 2023. On July 31,

2023, the trial court entered an order granting defendant a “full *** waiver of all fees, costs, and

charges.”

¶7 On October 25, 2023, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action with prejudice.

Defendant alleged that plaintiff lacked both “standing to bring a cause of action” and “personal

jurisdiction.” Defendant requested “[t]riple damages” totaling $7,601.10 plus $1000 in costs. On

-2- No. 1-24-1056

November 20, 2023, defendant filed a motion for an “Order of Default Judgment” arguing that

plaintiff had not responded to defendant’s motion to dismiss.

¶8 On December 11, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the action without

prejudice. On December 18, 2023, the trial court entered an order dismissing the action “without

prejudice and without further costs to either party with the right to reinstate.”

¶9 On January 16, 2024, defendant filed a motion seeking the same damages and costs.

Defendant alleged that plaintiff “willfully presented fraud *** by making false claims.”

¶ 10 On January 24, 2024, the trial court denied defendant’s motion. Checked boxes on the order

reflect that defendant and counsel for plaintiff appeared.

¶ 11 On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by (1) granting plaintiff’s motion to

voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice before ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss

the action with prejudice, and (2) failing to grant defendant’s motion for damages and costs.

¶ 12 Before addressing the merits of this appeal, we must determine our jurisdiction. See

Johnson v. Fuller Family Holdings, LLC, 2017 IL App (1st) 162130, ¶ 23. Without jurisdiction,

we cannot consider the merits of an appeal. Secura Insurance Co. v. Illinois Farmers Insurance

Co., 232 Ill. 2d 209, 213 (2009).

¶ 13 Generally, in civil cases, a final judgment is appealable as of right. Ill. S. Ct. R. 301 (eff.

Feb. 1, 1994). A final judgment disposes of the parties’ rights on the entire case or on some definite

and separate part thereof. Dubina v. Mesirow Realty Development, 178 Ill. 2d 496, 502 (1997).

¶ 14 A dismissal order with prejudice constitutes a final judgment as it prohibits the plaintiff

from amending the complaint and terminates the litigation. Fabian v. BGC Holdings, LP, 2014 IL

App (1st) 141576, ¶ 12. Dismissals entered without prejudice, though, are not final and appealable

-3- No. 1-24-1056

(City of Naperville v. Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, Labor Council, F.O.P. Lodge No. 42,

2013 IL App (2d) 121071, ¶ 13) and remain such until the right to refile expires (Gassman v. Clerk

of the Circuit Court of Cook County, 2019 IL App (1st) 171543, ¶ 20). See also 735 ILCS 5/2-

1009(a) (West 2022) (“The plaintiff may, at any time before trial or hearing begins, *** dismiss

his or her action or any part thereof as to any defendant, without prejudice, by order filed in the

cause.”).

¶ 15 Here, on December 11, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the action

without prejudice. Then, on December 18, 2023, the trial court entered an order dismissing the

action “without prejudice and without further costs to either party with the right to reinstate.” As

plaintiff could reinstate the action, the dismissal of the action was not a final and appealable order.

Gassman, 2019 IL App (1st) 171543, ¶ 20. This court therefore must dismiss defendant’s appeal

from the trial court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the action without

prejudice. See Secura Insurance Co., 232 Ill. 2d at 213.

¶ 16 As for the January 24, 2024, order denying defendant’s motion for damages and costs, that

order did not dispose of the parties’ rights as to any part of the case. See Dubina, 178 Ill. 2d at 502.

To the contrary, the preceding order of December 18, 2023, dismissed the proceedings while

expressly providing that the action could be reinstated. Consequently, this court must also dismiss

defendant’s appeal as to the January 24, 2024, order.

¶ 17 For the forgoing reasons, we dismiss this appeal.

¶ 18 Dismissed.

-4-