purely legal challenge in Illinois

2025Warren County, 2015 IL 117783 , ¶ 47. ¶ 17 Here, defendant’s section 2-1401 petition raises a purely legal challenge that his AUUW conviction is based on a facially unconstitutional statute that is void ab initio.

2024Daniels, 2017 IL App (1st) 142130-B , ¶ 10 (“Where a section 2-1401 petition raises a purely legal challenge to a judgment, the standard of review is de novo.” (citing Warren County Soil & Water Conservation District v. Walters, 2015 IL 117783 , ¶ 47)). ¶ 20 Initially we note there is no dispute the trial court had jurisdiction in this case or that this court has jurisdiction over this appeal.

2024Id. “ ‘[T]he allegation [in a section 2-1401 petition] that the judgment or order is void substitutes for and negates the need to allege a meritorious defense and due diligence.’ ” Id. ¶ 48 (quoting Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of Education, 201 Ill. 2d 95, 104 (2002)). -8- No. 1-23-1779 ¶ 24 In this case, the Serpes’ section 2-1401 petition raised a purely legal challenge to the circuit court’s order that the judgment was void pursuant to section 2-1401(f).

2024Id. “ ‘[T]he allegation [in a section 2-1401 petition] that the judgment or order is void substitutes for and negates the need to allege a meritorious defense and due diligence.’ ” Id. ¶ 48 (quoting Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of Education, 201 Ill. 2d 95, 104 (2002)). -8- No. 1-23-1779 ¶ 24 In this case, the Serpes’ section 2-1401 petition raised a purely legal challenge to the circuit court’s order that the judgment was void pursuant to section 2-1401(f).

2024Id. “ ‘[T]he allegation [in a section 2-1401 petition] that the judgment or order is void substitutes for and negates the need to allege a meritorious defense and due diligence.’ ” Id. ¶ 48 (quoting Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of Education, 201 Ill. 2d 95, 104 (2002)). -8- No. 1-23-1779 ¶ 24 In this case, the Serpes’ section 2-1401 petition raised a purely legal challenge to the circuit court’s order that the judgment was void pursuant to section 2-1401(f).

2015As this court has explained, “the allegation [in a section 2-1401 petition] that the judgment or order is void substitutes for and negates the need to allege a meritorious defense and due diligence.” Sarkissian, 201 Ill. 2d at 104 (citing People v. Harvey, 196 Ill. 2d 444, 452 (2001) (McMorrow, J., specially concurring, joined by Freeman, J.)). - 14 - ¶ 49 In other words, Vincent represents a specific niche of section 2-1401 petitions, those presenting a purely legal claim challenging a final judgment or order as void.

2024Id. at 221 . ¶ 23 However, where a section 2-1401 petition raises a purely legal challenge to a judgment by alleging that it is void under subsection (f) of section 2-1401, our review is de novo.

2023“Whether a section 2-1401 petition should be granted lies within the sound discretion of the circuit court, depending upon the facts and equities presented.” Airoom, 114 Ill. 2d at 221 . ¶ 15 By contrast, where a section 2-1401 petition raises a purely legal challenge to a judgment, review of the petition is de novo.

2021See Cohen v. Blockbuster Entertainment, 15 No. 1-20-1189 Inc., 351 Ill.

2012“However, where the trial court does not make any factual findings or the underlying facts are not in dispute, the court’s decision is based upon a purely legal analysis and we review the trial court’s denial of a motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration de novo.” Id.

2011Id.

2011Id.

2017But see Harris Bank N.A. v. Harris, 2015 IL App (1st) 133017, ¶¶ 39, 60 (applying an abuse of discretion standard where no evidentiary hearing was held); Forest Preserve District v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 131925, ¶¶ 70, 84 (same).

2017But see Harris Bank N.A. v. Harris, 2015 IL App (1st) 133017, ¶¶ 39, 60 (applying an abuse of discretion standard where no evidentiary hearing was held); Forest Preserve District v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 131925, ¶¶ 70, 84 (same).

2017We agree with Mr. Graves and Mr. Lindvig that Guarantee forfeited these arguments by failing to raise them in the circuit court (see Helping Others Maintain Environmental Standards v. Bos, 406 Ill.

2016We agree with Mr. Graves and Mr. Lindvig that Guarantee forfeited these arguments by failing to raise them in the circuit court (see Helping Others Maintain Environmental Standards v. Bos, 406 Ill.

2016Accordingly, because it involves the discretionary exercise of equitable powers, a trial court's ruling on a fact-dependent section 2-1401 petition is reviewed for 14 ¶ 37 A marital settlement agreement is unconscionable if there is “an absence of a meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Marriage of Baecker, 2012 IL App (3d) 110660, ¶ 40 ; see also In re Marriage of Steadman, 283 Ill.

2016Accordingly, because it involves the discretionary exercise of equitable powers, a trial court's ruling on a fact-dependent section 2-1401 petition is reviewed for 14 ¶ 37 A marital settlement agreement is unconscionable if there is “an absence of a meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Marriage of Baecker, 2012 IL App (3d) 110660, ¶ 40 ; see also In re Marriage of Steadman, 283 Ill.

2015As this court has explained, “the allegation [in a section 2-1401 petition] that the judgment or order is void substitutes for and negates the need to allege a meritorious defense and due diligence.” Sarkissian, 201 Ill. 2d at 104 (citing People v. Harvey, 196 Ill. 2d 444, 452 (2001) (McMorrow, J., specially concurring, joined by Freeman, J.)). ¶ 49 In other words, Vincent represents a specific niche of section 2-1401 petitions, those presenting a purely legal claim challenging a final judgment or order as void.

2015As this court has explained, “the allegation [in a section 2-1401 petition] that the judgment or order is void substitutes for and negates the need to allege a meritorious defense and due diligence.” Sarkissian, 201 Ill. 2d at 104 (citing People v. Harvey, 196 Ill. 2d 444, 452 (2001) (McMorrow, J., specially concurring, joined by Freeman, J.)). - 14 - ¶ 49 In other words, Vincent represents a specific niche of section 2-1401 petitions, those presenting a purely legal claim challenging a final judgment or order as void.

2023See also Hutcherson v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 342 Ill.

2004Hutcherson v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 342 Ill.

2023See Harris Bank, 2015 IL App (1st) 133017, ¶ 60 (finding that section 2-1401 petition did not raise a purely legal error where the plaintiff presented fact-dependent challenges to the circuit court’s judgment). ¶ 30 As noted, where a section 2-1401 petition raises a fact-dependent challenge, the petitioner is required to allege facts establishing (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.

2023As a purely legal challenge, no showing of diligence is required (Pajor, 2012 IL App (2d) 110899 , ¶ 19; Harris Bank, N.A. v. Harris, 2015 IL App (1st) 133017, ¶ 59 ), and our review is de novo (Pajor, 2012 IL App (2d) 110899 , ¶ 21; Warren County, 2015 IL 117783, ¶ 47 ). ¶ 27 In this case, we cannot find that defendant’s section 2-1401 petition was in the nature of a bill of review but instead agree with the circuit court that it was a fact-dependent challenge subject to the Airoom requirements.

2026Warren County, 2015 IL 117783 , ¶ 47. ¶ 17 Alternately, a defendant may file a petition under the Act to “challenge his conviction or sentence for violations of federal or state constitutional rights.” People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458, 471 (2006).

2023Askew Insurance Group v. AZM Group, Inc., 2020 IL App (1st) 190179, ¶ 21 . 6 1-22-0452 Accord Stolfo v. KinderCare Learning Centers, Inc., 2016 IL App (1st) 142396, ¶ 22 (noting that a de novo standard applies where the section 2-1401 petition claims that an earlier judgment was void).

2023QuickClick Loans, LLC v. Russell, 407 Ill.

2021The typical example is a petition that challenges a judgment as void (Walters, 2015 IL 117783, ¶ 47 ), but the Walters court also cited the example of a claim, brought by a person civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person, that his counsel was ineffective in the commitment proceeding (Walters, 2015 IL 117783, ¶ 41 (citing People v. Lawton, 212 Ill. 2d 285, 297 (2004)). 1 The Walters court held that the disposition of a section 2-1401 petition that raises purely legal issues is subject to de novo review.