The Village of Palatine v. Paulick

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: June 2, 2026
• Docket: 1-25-1233
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2026 IL App (1st) 251233-U No. 1-25-1233 Order filed June 2, 2026 Second 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 ______________________________________________________________________________ THE VILLAGE OF PALATINE, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 24 M3 5581 ) THOMAS PAULICK, ) Honorable ) Martin S. Agran, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE VAN TINE delivered the judgment of the court. Justices McBride and D.B. Walker concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor did not include a Supreme Court Rule 304(a) finding, which was necessary to make the summary judgment ruling appealable where defendant’s counterclaims remain pending in the circuit court.

¶2 Defendant Thomas Paulick appeals the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor

of plaintiff Village of Palatine (the Village). We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The

circuit court’s grant of summary judgment did not include a Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (eff. Mar. No. 1-25-1233

8, 2016) finding, which was necessary to make the summary judgment ruling immediately

appealable because Paulick’s counterclaims remain pending in the circuit court.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 This case arises from disputes about the condition of Paulick’s house and yard in Palatine.

Paulick has been a self-represented litigant throughout all proceedings including this appeal.

¶5 A. Administrative Proceedings

¶6 On December 2, 2022, the Village filed an administrative complaint alleging that Paulick’s

house’s exterior had holes, loose and decaying siding, peeling paint, broken shutters, and detached

gutters, in violation of the Palatine Code of Ordinances and the International Property Maintenance

Code. Following a hearing, on June 15, 2023, an administrative hearing officer found in the

Village’s favor and fined Paulick $9,855. Paulick petitioned for administrative review in the circuit

court of Cook County, initiating case number 23 M3 4587. On October 13, 2023, the circuit court

affirmed the administrative hearing officer’s order. Paulick did not pay the $9,855 fine or appeal

to this court.

¶7 On June 20, 2023, and May 30, 2024, the Village issued notices to Paulick regarding his

overgrown yard.

¶8 B. This Lawsuit

¶9 On July 31, 2024, the Village filed this lawsuit against Paulick, seeking (1) a judgment for

the unpaid $9,855 fine; (2) an order requiring him to repair his house’s exterior; (3) fines for

disobeying the administrative hearing officer’s ruling in case number 23 M3 4587; (4) fines for

his overgrown yard; and (5) an injunction requiring him to comply with the Palatine Code of

Ordinances.

-2- No. 1-25-1233

¶ 10 On March 4, 2025, the Village moved for summary judgment pursuant to section 2-1005

of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2024)). The Village based its summary

judgment motion on requests to admit that Paulick answered after the 28-day deadline, thereby

admitting the facts those requests concerned. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 216(c) (eff. Jul. 1, 2014). The Village

argued that Paulick admitted he had not paid the $9,855 fine, repaired his house’s exterior, or

addressed his overgrown yard; therefore, the Village was entitled to judgment as a matter of law

under the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/1-2.2-55(b), 11-31-2 (West 2024)) and the Palatine

Code of Ordinances (Palatine Code of Ordinances §§ 10-44(a), 12-294).

¶ 11 On April 25, 2025, Paulick responded to the Village’s motion for summary judgment.

Paulick contended that the Village found his house in compliance with the Palatine Code of

Ordinances as of May 23, 2019. He also disputed the Village’s allegations about his overgrown

yard.

¶ 12 The same day, Paulick filed counterclaims against the Village. Paulick alleged that Village

inspectors trespassed on his property, fabricated evidence of ordinance violations, and falsely

accused him of ordinance violations that occurred on a neighboring property. Paulick sought

$10,000 in damages for trespass and $20,000 for the Village’s “harassment” of him.

¶ 13 On May 9, 2025, the Village filed a reply in support of its summary judgment motion.

¶ 14 On May 12, 2025, the Village moved to strike or dismiss Paulick’s counterclaims. The

Village argued that Paulick’s counterclaims were improper because he did not file them as part of

his answer, which section 2-608(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-608(b) (West

2024)) required, and untimely because he filed them after the parties “fully briefed the Village’s

-3- No. 1-25-1233

Motion for Summary Judgment.” 1 Additionally, the Village contended that the circuit court lacked

jurisdiction over the counterclaims because Paulick did not exhaust his administrative remedies

and because the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/1-101 et seq. (West 2024)) barred such

counterclaims anyway.

¶ 15 On May 30, 2025, the circuit court deemed admitted all facts raised in the Village’s

requests to admit due to Paulick’s late response. The court also granted the Village’s motion for

summary judgment on all five counts. The court entered judgment as to the $9,855 fine, imposed

additional fines to be determined later, ordered Paulick to cure the defects on his property within

21 days, and entered an injunction against him. The written summary judgment order did not

include a Rule 304(a) finding that “there [was] no just reason for delaying either enforcement or

appeal or both.” See Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(a) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016).

¶ 16 On June 27, 2025, Paulick filed a notice of appeal challenging the grant of summary

judgment. The same day, Paulick responded to the Village’s motion to strike or dismiss his

counterclaims. He essentially reiterated the allegations of his counterclaims.

¶ 17 On July 14, 2025, the Village filed a reply in support of its motion to strike or dismiss.

¶ 18 On July 15, 2025, the Village filed a petition for a rule to show cause as to why the court

should not hold Paulick in contempt for not complying with the summary judgment order.

¶ 19 On July 29, 2025, the court continued the Village’s motion to strike or dismiss Paulick’s

counterclaims and its petition for a rule to show cause to September 30, 2025. That order is the

last document in the record on appeal. We take judicial notice of the circuit court’s electronic

1 The Village’s characterization is not accurate. Paulick filed his counterclaims while the parties were briefing summary judgment.

-4- No. 1-25-1233

docket (see In re Marriage of Padilla and Kowalski, 2022 IL App (1st) 200815, ¶ 3), which

indicates that this case remains pending in the circuit court. It is set for a trial call status hearing

on July 29, 2026.

¶ 20 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 21 Paulick appeals the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment. His notice of appeal does

not indicate which Supreme Court Rule he invokes as the basis for appellate jurisdiction. However,

his brief contends that we have jurisdiction under Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016)

because the grant of summary judgment “ended only part of a civil *** case but included a special

finding of appealability under Rule 304(a).” As we explain below, the grant of summary judgment

ended part of a civil case but did not include a Rule 304(a) finding; therefore, we do not have

jurisdiction.

¶ 22 Rule 304(a) provides that

“[i]f multiple parties or multiple claims for relief are involved in an action, an

appeal may be taken from a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the

parties or claims only if the trial court has made an express written finding that there is no

just reason for delaying either enforcement or appeal or both. *** In the absence of such a

finding, any judgment that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities

of fewer than all the parties is not enforceable or appealable ***.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(a) (eff.

Mar. 8, 2016).

Without a Rule 304(a) finding, a final order that resolves fewer than all claims is not appealable

and does not become appealable until the circuit court has resolved all claims. Dubina v. Mesirow

Realty Development, Inc., 178 Ill. 2d 496, 502-03 (1997).

-5- No. 1-25-1233

¶ 23 This case involves multiple claims for relief: the Village’s claims against Paulick and

Paulick’s counterclaims against the Village. The circuit court’s grant of summary judgment was a

final order (see Shutkas Electric, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 366 Ill. App. 3d 76, 80 (2006)), but only

as to some of the claims in this case. The record indicates that Paulick’s counterclaims remain

pending. So, the grant of summary judgment is appealable only if the circuit court made a Rule

304(a) finding. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(a) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016); Gateway Auto, Inc. v. Commercial

Pallet, Inc., 2023 IL App (1st) 230185, ¶ 24. It did not. Because the circuit court did not make a

Rule 304(a) finding and Paulick’s counterclaims remain pending, we do not have jurisdiction over

this appeal.

¶ 24 This conclusion is consistent with authority holding that when a circuit court grants a

dispositive motion but does not enter a proper Rule 304(a) finding, we do not have jurisdiction if

counterclaims remain pending in the circuit court. See, e.g., Gateway Auto, 2023 IL App (1st)

230185, ¶¶ 24-27 (order dismissing complaint with prejudice was not appealable because

counterclaims remained pending and the circuit court did not make a proper Rule 304(a) finding);

Livnjak v. Right Residential II Fund 2 LLC, 2018 IL App (1st) 172879, ¶ 22 (order dismissing

complaint was not appealable because it did not include a Rule 304(a) finding and counterclaims

remained pending); Stasko v. City of Chicago, 2013 IL App (1st) 120265, ¶ 28 (order granting

summary judgment was not appealable because it did not include a Rule 304(a) finding and

counterclaim was still pending); City of Champaign v. Madigan, 2013 IL App (4th) 120662, ¶ 21

(no appellate jurisdiction where the circuit court’s order left a counterclaim and attorney fees

unresolved and did not include a proper Rule 304(a) finding).

-6- No. 1-25-1233

¶ 25 Furthermore, the circuit court’s orders indicate that it intended for the case to continue after

the summary judgment ruling. The summary judgment order states that interest, attorney fees, and

additional fines for Paulick’s ordinance violations would “be determined at a later date.” In its July

29, 2025, order, the circuit court set the Village’s motion to strike or dismiss Paulick’s

counterclaims and the Village’s motion for a rule to show cause for further proceedings on

September 30, 2025. And, as noted above, the circuit court’s electronic docket indicates that

proceedings are still ongoing.

¶ 26 Rule 304(b) lists certain types of orders that are appealable without a Rule 304(a) finding,

but does not include an order like the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in this case. See

Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016). Aside from citing Rule 304(a), Paulick’s briefs do not

address our jurisdiction. We have independently reviewed our jurisdiction (see Johnson v.

Armstrong, 2022 IL 127942, ¶ 18) and find no other basis to invoke it. Accordingly, we dismiss

this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

¶ 27 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 28 For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

¶ 29 Dismissed.

-7-