existence of a meritorious defense in Illinois

2026However, such a petition “is not designed to provide a general review of all trial errors nor to substitute for direct appeal.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. 5 ¶ 17 “To obtain relief under section 2-1401, the defendant ‘must affirmatively set forth specific factual allegations supporting each of the following elements: (1) the existence of a meritorious defense or claim; (2) due diligence in presenting this defense or claim to the circuit court in the original action; and (3) due diligence in filing the section 2-1401 petition for relief.’ ” People v. Pinkonsly, 207 Ill. 2d 555, 565

2026“A meritorious defense under section 2-1401 involves errors of fact, not law.” Id. ¶ 18 Here, the defendant did not set forth allegations supporting the existence of a meritorious defense.

2026However, such a petition “is not designed to provide a general review of all trial errors nor to substitute for direct appeal.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. 5 ¶ 17 “To obtain relief under section 2-1401, the defendant ‘must affirmatively set forth specific factual allegations supporting each of the following elements: (1) the existence of a meritorious defense or claim; (2) due diligence in presenting this defense or claim to the circuit court in the original action; and (3) due diligence in filing the section 2-1401 petition for relief.’ ” People v. Pinkonsly, 207 Ill. 2d 555, 565

2026“To obtain relief under section 2-1401, the defendant ‘must affirmatively set forth specific factual allegations supporting each of the following elements: (1) the existence of a meritorious defense or claim; (2) due diligence in presenting this defense or claim to the circuit court in the original action; and (3) due diligence in filing the section 2-1401 petition for relief.’ ” Id. at 565 (quoting Smith v. Airoom, Inc., 114 Ill. 2d 209, 220-221 (1986)).

2025App. 3d 82, 92 (2010) (quoting Lawton, 212 Ill. 2d at 297 ). ¶ 29 “To obtain relief under section 2-1401, the defendant ‘must affirmatively set forth specific factual allegations supporting each of the following elements: (1) the existence of a meritorious defense or claim; (2) due diligence in presenting this defense or claim to the circuit court in the original action; and (3) due diligence in filing the section 2-1401 petition for 8 No. 1-24-1535 relief.’ ” People v. Pinkonsly, 207 Ill. 2d 555, 565 (2003) (quoting Smith v. Airoom, Inc., 114 Ill. 2d 209, 220-21 (1986)). “[A]n action brought

2024Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 8, 17 n.5. 17 ¶ 39 To be entitled to relief on a fact-dependent section 2-1401 petition, such as the one filed in the present case, the petitioner must prove the following three elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) the existence of a meritorious claim or defense in the original action, (2) due diligence in presenting the claim or defense in the trial court, and (3) due diligence in filing the section 2-1401 petition.

2025Further: “ ‘Whether substantial justice is being achieved by vacating a judgment or order is not subject to precise definition, but relevant considerations include diligence or the lack thereof, the existence of a meritorious defense, the severity of the penalty resulting from the order or judgment, and the relative hardships on the parties from granting or denying vacatur.’ ” Id. (quoting Jackson v. Bailey, 384 Ill.

2023In addressing such a request, “ ‘[the overriding consideration is simply whether or not substantial justice is being done between the litigants.’ ” Draper & Kramer, Inc. v. King, 2014 IL App (1st) 132073, ¶ 23 (quoting In re Haley D., 2011 IL 110886, ¶ 57 ). “ ‘Whether substantial justice is being achieved by vacating a judgment or order is not subject to precise definition, but relevant considerations include diligence or the lack thereof, the existence of a meritorious defense, the severity of the penalty resulting from the order or judgment, and the relative hardships on the parties from gr

2023“In making this assessment, a court should consider all events leading up to the judgment,” as “‘[w]hat is just and proper must be determined by the facts of each case, not by a hard and fast rule applicable to all situations regardless of the outcome. [Citation.]’” Haley D., 2011 IL 110886, ¶ 69 . (quoting Mann v. Upjohn Co., 324 Ill.App.3d 367, 377 (2001)). ¶ 16 Here, the trial court explained that it entered the judgment because of Parmar’s failure to file an appearance.

2022App. 3d 546, 549 (2008) (citing Mann v. Upjohn, 324 Ill.

2019App. 3d at 493 , 742 N.E.2d at 382 . ¶ 29 On appeal, petitioners argue they presented facts showing the existence of a meritorious claim for relief based on decedent’s medical records, text messages, and social media posts, as well as text messages between Baker and decedent’s father.

2015Id. ¶ 46 To be entitled to relief under section 2-1401, the petitioner must affirmatively set forth specific factual allegations supporting each of the following elements: (1) the existence of a meritorious claim or defense; (2) due diligence in presenting that claim or defense in the original action; and (3) due diligence in presenting the section 2-1401 petition.

2026To be entitled to relief under section 2-1401 based on a factual challenge to a final judgment, “the petition must set forth specific factual allegations supporting each of the following elements: (1) the existence of a meritorious defense; (2) due diligence in presenting this defense or claim to the circuit court in the original action; and (3) due diligence in filing the section 2-1401 petition for relief.” Id. ¶ 37 (citing Smith v. Airoom, Inc., 114 Ill. 2d 209, 220-21 (1986)). ¶ 17 Stroud asserts that he demonstrated due diligence because he was never served with the summons and petition a

2026Warren County Soil and Water Conservation Dist. v. Walters, 2015 IL 117783 , ¶ 31. ¶ 15 To be entitled to relief from a final judgment under section 2-1401, a petitioner must show by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) the existence of a meritorious defense or claim; (2) due diligence in presenting this defense or claim to the circuit court in the original action; and (3) due diligence in filing the section 2-1401 petition for relief.

2026To state this type of “new facts” claim, “the petition must set forth allegations supporting the existence of a meritorious claim or defense; due diligence in presenting the claim or defense to the circuit court in the original action; and due diligence in filing the section 2-1401 petition.” Id. ¶ 17 Here, Lynon’s petition does not state a legally sufficient “new facts” claim because it fails to establish due diligence in presenting any of those “new facts” at trial.

2025Instead, Gerald Adelman & Associates reiterated that a section 2-1401 petition “must set forth allegations supporting the existence of a meritorious claim or defense.” Id. at 94 . ¶ 27 Indeed, courts have long understood that the petitioner must allege a meritorious claim in the original action.

2023In re Petition of the Village of Kildeer To Annex Certain Territory, 124 Ill. 2d 533, 544 (1988). ¶ 46 When, as here, the movant seeks to set aside a judgment based on newly discovered evidence, the petitioner must show that “the new evidence was not known to her at the time of the proceeding and could not have been discovered by the petitioner with the exercise of reasonable diligence.” Goldsmith, 2011 IL App (1st) 093448, ¶ 15 ; see Cavitt v. Repel, 2015 IL App (1st) 133382, ¶ 46 (“to set aside a judgment based on newly discovered evidence, the evidence must be such as could not reasonably h

1991Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 2—1401(c)), and where the party filing the petition can show: (1) the existence of a meritorious defense or claim; (2) due diligence in presenting the defense or claim to the circuit court in the original action; and (3) due diligence in filing the section 2 — 1401 petition (In re Petition of Village of Kildeer to Annex Certain Territory (1988), 124 Ill. 2d 533, 544 ; Northern Illinois Gas Co., 199 Ill.

2026Instead, the petitioner must show “ ‘that through no fault or negligence of his own, the error of fact or the existence of a valid defense was not made to appear to the trial court.’ ” Id. (quoting Brockmeyer v. Duncan, 18 Ill. 2d 502, 505 (1960)).

1976(Glenn v. People, 9 Ill. 2d 335, 340 (1956); Brockmeyer v. Duncan, 18 Ill. 2d 502, 505 (1960).) In order to vacate a default judgment under this section, the petitioner must show (1) the existence of a meritorious defense and (2) freedom from negligence on his own part. ( Glenn at 340 .) It has been repeatedly held by our courts that such a petition is not intended to relieve a party from the consequences of his own mistakes or negligence.

2003To obtain relief under section 2-1401, the defendant "must affirmatively set forth specific factual allegations supporting each of the following elements: (1) the existence of a meritorious defense or claim; (2) due diligence in presenting this defense or claim to the circuit court in the original action; and (3) due diligence in filing the section 2-1401 petition for relief." Smith v. Airoom, Inc., 114 Ill.2d 209, 220-21 , 102 Ill.Dec. 368 , 499 N.E.2d 1381 (1986); accord Kaput v. Hoey, 124 Ill.2d 370, 378 , 125 Ill.Dec. 202 , 530 N.E.2d 230 (1988).

2003To obtain relief under section 2 — 1401, the defendant “must affirmatively set forth specific factual allegations supporting each of the following elements: (1) the existence of a meritorious defense or claim; (2) due diligence in presenting this defense or claim to the circuit court in the original action; and (3) due diligence in filing the section 2 — 1401 petition for relief.” Smith v. Airoom, Inc., 114 Ill. 2d 209, 220-21 (1986); accord Kaput v. Hoey, 124 Ill. 2d 370, 378 (1988).

2026“A petitioner is entitled to relief under section 2-1401 of the Code when he sets forth specific factual allegations supporting each of the following elements: (1) the existence of a meritorious defense or claim; (2) due diligence in presenting the defense or claim to the trial court in the original action; and (3) due diligence in filing the section 2-1401 petition for relief.” Cavalry Portfolio Services v. Rocha, 2012 IL App (1st) 111690, ¶ 9 . ¶ 58 Notably, “the grounds for collaterally challenging the issuance of a tax deed are specifically limited by the legislature to the grounds listed

2021Cavalry Portfolio Services v. Rocha, 2012 IL App (1st) 111690, ¶ 8 .

2023Physicians Insurance Exchange v. Jennings, 316 Ill.

2013Physicians Insurance Exchange v. Jennings, 316 Ill.

2026Id. at 103 .

2023Sarkissian, 201 Ill. 2d at 104 .

2013A petitioner is entitled to relief under section 2-1401 if the petition sets forth specific factual allegations supporting each of the following elements: “(1) the existence of a meritorious defense or claim; (2) due diligence in presenting the defense or claim to the circuit court in the original action; and (3) due diligence in filing the section 2-1401 petition for relief.” Fiala v. Schulenberg, 256 Ill.

1999As stated in Fiala : "In order to be entitled to relief under section 2--1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure [citation], the petitioner must set forth specific factual allegations supporting each of the following elements: (1) the existence of a meritorious defense or claim; (2) due diligence in presenting this defense or claim to the circuit court in the original action; and (3) due diligence in filing the section 2- -1401 petition for relief. *** Due diligence requires that the section 2--1401 petitioner have a reasonable excuse for failing to act within the appropriate time: *** he is not e

2023See Cavitt v. Repel, 2015 IL App (1st) 133382, ¶ 46 (setting forth the requirements for relief under section 2-1401). ¶ 47 As a final matter, plaintiff argues that the billing entries in defendants’ fee petition, and plaintiff’s receipt of the February 21, 2023, final order by mail and not email suggest ex parte communications, improper court process and violation of the judicial conduct canons.

2021Id. ¶ 15 To obtain relief under section 2-1401, defendant must set forth specific factual allegations showing (1) the existence of a meritorious defense or claim; (2) due diligence in presenting the defense or claim in the original action; and (3) due diligence in filing the section 2-1401 petition.

2023Draper and Kramer, Inc. v. King, 2014 IL App (1st) 132073 .

2023In addressing such a request, “ ‘[the overriding consideration is simply whether or not substantial justice is being done between the litigants.’ ” Draper & Kramer, Inc. v. King, 2014 IL App (1st) 132073, ¶ 23 (quoting In re Haley D., 2011 IL 110886, ¶ 57 ). “ ‘Whether substantial justice is being achieved by vacating a judgment or order is not subject to precise definition, but relevant considerations include diligence or the lack thereof, the existence of a meritorious defense, the severity of the penalty resulting from the order or judgment, and the relative hardships on the parties from gr

2025Further: “ ‘Whether substantial justice is being achieved by vacating a judgment or order is not subject to precise definition, but relevant considerations include diligence or the lack thereof, the existence of a meritorious defense, the severity of the penalty resulting from the order or judgment, and the relative hardships on the parties from granting or denying vacatur.’ ” Id. (quoting Jackson v. Bailey, 384 Ill.

2025Alvarez v. $59,914 United States Currency, 2022 IL 126927, ¶ 16 (unless a section 2-1401 petition alleges that a judgment is void, “the petitioner must allege a meritorious defense to the original action” (emphasis added)); In re Haley D., 2011 IL 110886, ¶ 58 (a petitioner seeking relief under section - 10 - 2-1401(a) must show “not only the existence of a meritorious claim or defense in the original action, but also due diligence in pursuing the claim or defense in the circuit court as well as due diligence in presenting the petition for relief under section 2-1401(a)”); Keener v. City of He

1996However, as previously noted, whether a meritorious defense has been established does not depend upon whether a defense would ultimately prevail at trial (see Yorke, 110 Ill.App.3d 1009 , 66 Ill.Dec. 718 , 443 N.E.2d 644 ; Bonanza, 128 Ill.App.3d 714 , 83 Ill.Dec. 922 , 471 N.E.2d 221 ), but, rather, is determined by an examination of the section 2-1401 petition to ascertain whether, if believed by the trier of fact, the defense would defeat the plaintiff's claim.

1996However, as previously noted, whether a meritorious defense has been established does not depend upon whether a defense would ultimately prevail at trial (see Yorke, 110 Ill.App.3d 1009 , 66 Ill.Dec. 718 , 443 N.E.2d 644 ; Bonanza, 128 Ill.App.3d 714 , 83 Ill.Dec. 922 , 471 N.E.2d 221 ), but, rather, is determined by an examination of the section 2-1401 petition to ascertain whether, if believed by the trier of fact, the defense would defeat the plaintiff's claim.

2025First, the court rejected Reeves’ argument that the October 17 dismissal order was void, noting that an order is void only when the court lacks jurisdiction or the judgment is based on a facially unconstitutional statute (see People v. Thompson, 2015 IL 118151 , ¶¶ 31- 32), neither of which occurred here. ¶ 20 Second, the court found that Reeves did not act with due diligence by waiting about 19 months after the dismissal order to file the section 2-1401 petition. ¶ 21 Third, the court found that none of the three counts in Reeves’ section 2-1401 petition demonstrated the existence of a merito

2025People v. Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶ 44 (citing Warren County Soil & Water Conservation District v. Walters, 2015 IL 117783, ¶¶ 37-51 ). 2 On appeal, petitioner has abandoned the claim that the provision that mandates life in prison for multiple murders is facially unconstitutional. -6- No. 1-22-1422 ¶ 23 To obtain relief under section 2-1401, one must affirmatively set forth specific factual allegations supporting each of the following elements: (1) the existence of a meritorious defense or claim; (2) due diligence in presenting this defense or claim to the circuit court in the original acti

2021Dodds, -5- No. 1-19-1714 2014 IL App (1st) 122268, ¶ 18 .

2020Dodds, 2014 IL App (1st) 122268, ¶ 18 ; People v. Pinkonsly, 207 Ill. 2d 555, 566 (2003); see also Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 7–8.