Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Alexander v. Burke
Citations: 287 N.E.2d 53; 6 Ill. App. 3d 919; 1972 Ill. App. LEXIS 2611Docket: 56041
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; July 28, 1972; Illinois; State Appellate Court
Plaintiffs Joe Alexander et al. appealed the Illinois Appellate Court's order vacating judgments entered in their favor. The court had set the case for trial after the defendant, Phillip Burke, filed a pro se motion to vacate, claiming he was not properly served, which questioned the court's jurisdiction. Plaintiffs argued that the motion did not comply with Section 72 of the Civil Practice Act, asserting that it was void since it was filed more than 30 days after the judgment without an affidavit. However, the court determined that not all motions to vacate judgments filed after 30 days are subject to Section 72. Specifically, the court referenced subparagraph 7 of Section 72, which allows for relief from void orders without needing to adhere to Section 72's requirements. The deputy sheriff's return indicated service was made to a family member of the defendant, leading the court to conclude that without proper service or appearance, the court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment against the defendant. The court ruled that the defendant's motion was a challenge to a potentially void judgment and did not require compliance with Section 72. Consequently, the order to vacate the judgments was deemed non-final and not appealable. The court emphasized its obligation to dismiss the appeal due to a lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, with Justices Lorenz and English concurring.