Illinois Compiled Statutes
735 ILCS 5/2-407 (2026)
Nonjoinder and misjoinder of parties - Change of parties
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(735 ILCS 5/2-407)
(from Ch. 110, par. 2-407)
Sec. 2-407.
Nonjoinder and misjoinder of parties - Change of parties.
No action shall be dismissed for misjoinder of parties, or dismissed
for nonjoinder of necessary parties without first affording reasonable
opportunity to add them as parties. New parties may be added and parties
misjoined may be dropped by order of the court, at any stage of the
cause, before or after judgment, as the ends of justice may require and
on terms which the court may fix.
(Source: P.A. 82-280.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust v. Gilbert, 2012 IL App (2d) 120164 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012).
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust v. Gilbert, 2012 IL App (2d) 120164 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “¶ 22 In a last-ditch effort to avoid this result, Deutsche Bank argues that section 2-407 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-407 (West 2008)), which allows the joinder of necessary parties after the commencement of a suit, protects against the dismissal of its…”
Yoder v. Ferguson, 885 N.E.2d 1060 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “735 ILCS 5/2-407 (West 2002) ("parties misjoined may be dropped by order of the court, at any stage of the cause, before or after judgment, as the ends of justice may require and on terms which the court may fix").”
Santiago v. E.W. Bliss Co., 2012 IL 111792 (Ill. 2012). “735 ILCS 5/2-407 (West 2010). In addition, section 2-616 provides that at “any time before final judgment amendments may be allowed on just and reasonable terms *** in any matter, either of form or substance.”
Lavite v. Dunstan, 2016 IL App (5th) 150401 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “" 735 ILCS 5/2-407 (West 2014). Additionally, had the defendants truly believed that the Madison VAC was a necessary party, they could have added the Madison VAC under section 2-405 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-405 (West 2014)).”
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Cornejo, 2015 IL App (3d) 140412 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “The trial court upheld the order striking the affirmative defenses, finding that it was a case of nonjoinder or misjoinder of parties under section 2-407 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-407 (West 2012)), and 7 finding that the Cornejos were not prejudiced by the error.”
Lavite v. Dunstan, 2016 IL App (5th) 150401 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “” 735 ILCS 5/2-407 (West 2014). Additionally, had the defendants truly believed that the Madison VAC was a necessary party, they could have added the Madison VAC under section 2-405 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-405 (West 2014)).”
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Cornejo, 2015 IL App (3d) 140412 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “The trial court upheld the order striking the affirmative defenses, finding that it was a case of nonjoinder or misjoinder of parties under section 2-407 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-407 (West 2012)), and finding that the Cornejos were not prejudiced by the error.”
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Colston, 2015 IL App (5th) 140100 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “” 735 ILCS 5/2-407 (West 2012). In the instant case, the note attached to the second amended complaint is prima facie evidence of standing, and the record shows the proper party was later substituted.”
RSA Props. Mission Hills, P.C. v. Mission Hills Homeowners Ass'n, 2024 IL App (1st) 231526 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “” 735 ILCS 5/2-407 (West 2022). Where the circuit court did not consider this argument, RSA was given no such opportunity, and it would therefore be improper for us to affirm the dismissal on this alternative basis.”
Hartford Fire Ins. v. Williams Bros. Constr., Inc., 149 F. Supp. 3d 1009 (C.D. Ill. 2016). “(735 ILCS 5/2-407); a defendant can file a third-party complaint either within the time for filing an- answer or by leave of court to bring in a party to the action (735 ILCS 5/2-406(b)); or Bitco could choose to intervene (735 ILCS 5/2— 408).”
Holzer v. Motorola Lighting Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “They argued primarily that even if DeMere was a necessary party, they had not been given a reasonable opportunity to add him, as required by section 2-407 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-407 (West 1994)). They stated they had not and did not concede that DeMere could not be made a…”
Moore v. Knupp, 2022 IL App (5th) 210118-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “¶ 44 Continued reliance on the general rule is further supported by statute, which prohibits dismissal for misjoinder of parties (735 ILCS 5/2-407 (West 2020)) and fails to provide dismissal as a remedy for misjoinder of claims (id.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.
|