Attorneys: Giese, Douglas C.
January 29, 2014
Prior results reported do not guarantee similar outcomes.
The Illinois Appellate Court First District recently granted a Motion to Dismiss an interlocutory appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed by Douglas Giese.
Appellant filed an interlocutory appeal of a lower court order which denied a Motion to Terminate a Citation to Discover Assets, and which did not contain Rule 304(a) language. The appeal raised two separate bases for the interlocutory appeal. First, pursuant to Rule 307(a)(1), it claimed that an order denying the Motion to Terminate a Citation to Discover Assets was effectively a denial of a request to lift an injunction. Second, pursuant to the appellate court’s mandatory jurisdiction over void orders, it claimed that because, as outlined in the motion to terminate, the citation had terminated, the lower court lacked jurisdiction over the matter, and the order itself was void.
The motion to dismiss argued Rule 307 was not inapplicable under Illinois law because the restraining provisions of a citation to discover assets are not the equivalent of injunctive relief for which Rule 307(a)(1) allows an interlocutory appeal (Bank Of Aspen v. Fox Cartage, Inc., 141 Ill.App.3d 369, 372 (2nd Dist. 1986)), and since the appellate court does not have mandatory jurisdiction over allegedly void orders which are not final and which lack Rule 304(a) language, there is no valid jurisdictional basis for the appeal.
Based on the arguments presented in the motion, the appellate court dismissed the pending interlocutory appeal.New Balance Popular CollectionRunning sneakers | Nike for Men