¶ 38 On review, an appellate court must interpret the orders of the trial court "from the entire context" in which they were entered, with reference to other parts of the record, including the pleadings and the other motions and issues pending before the court, as well as the arguments made by counsel. Dewan v. Ford Motor Co., 343 Ill. App. 3d 1062, 1069 (2003) (citing P&A Floor Co. v. Burch, 289 Ill. App. 3d 81, 88 (1997)). An appellate court must construe a trial court's orders "in a reasonable manner so as to give effect to the apparent intention of the trial court."

" 50 C.J.S. Judgments § 984 (2015).The case of Dewan v. Ford Motor Co. , 343 Ill. App. 3d 1062, 278 Ill.Dec. 673, 799 N.E.2d 391 (2003), is cited for this last proposition. In Dewan , the plaintiff appealed both the dismissal of his complaint and the denial of his motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

However, orders of the circuit court must be interpreted from the entire context in which they were entered, with reference to other parts of the record including the pleadings, motions, and issues before the court and the arguments of counsel. Dewan v. Ford Motor Co. , 343 Ill. App. 3d 1062, 1069, 278 Ill.Dec. 673, 799 N.E.2d 391 (2003) ; P&A Floor Co. v. Burch , 289 Ill. App. 3d 81, 88, 224 Ill.Dec. 546, 682 N.E.2d 107 (1997). Orders must be construed in a reasonable manner to give effect to the apparent intention of the circuit court.

However, orders of the circuit court must be interpreted from the entire context in which they were entered, with reference to other parts of the record including the pleadings, motions, and issues before the court and the arguments of counsel. Dew an v. Ford Motor Co., 343 Ill.App.3d 1062, 1069 (2003); P&A Floor Co. v. Burch, 289 Ill.App.3d 81, 88 (1997). Orders must be construed in a reasonable manner to give effect to the apparent intention of the circuit court. Dewan, 343 Ill.App.3d at 1069; P&A Floor Co., 289 Ill.App.3d at 88-89.

"The orders of the trial court must be interpreted from the entire context in which they were entered, with reference to other parts of the record including the pleadings, motions and issues before the court and the arguments of counsel." Kiefer v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 394 Ill. App. 3d 485, 494 (2009) (citing Dewan v. Ford Motor Co., 343 Ill. App. 3d 1062, 1069 (2003)). Orders must be construed in a reasonable manner so as to give effect to the apparent intention of the trial court.

The orders of the trial court must be interpreted from the entire context in which they were entered, with reference to other parts of the record including the pleadings, motions and issues before the court and the arguments of counsel. Kiefer, 394 Ill. App. 3d at 494, 916 N.E.2d at 29 (citing Dewan v. Ford Motor Co., 343 Ill. App. 3d 1062, 1069, 799 N.E.2d 391, 397 (2003), and PA Floor Co. v. Burch, 289 Ill. App. 3d 81, 88, 682 N.E.2d 107, 111 (1997)). Orders must be construed in a reasonable manner so as to give effect to the apparent intention of the trial court.

The orders of the trial court must be interpreted from the entire context in which they were entered, with reference to other parts of the record including the pleadings, motions and issues before the court and the arguments of counsel. Dewan v. Ford Motor Co., 343 Ill. App. 3d 1062, 1069 (2003); PA Floor Co. v. Burch, 289 Ill. App. 3d 81, 88 (1997). Orders must be construed in a reasonable manner so as to give effect to the apparent intention of the trial court.

Our prior opinion in this case did not reach the merits of the issues raised on appeal. Instead, we determined that, while we had jurisdiction of the appeal, the appeal was premature because the circuit court had not yet ruled on the plaintiffs pending petition for attorney fees. The case was reversed and remanded to the trial court for either a hearing on the petition or a finding pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (155 Ill. 2d R. 304(a)). Dewan v. Ford Motor Co., 343 Ill. App. 3d 1062, 1075, 799 N.E.2d 391 (2003). A full discussion of the procedural history and jurisdictional issues is contained in our previous opinion in this case.

It is of little importance in this case that the trial court's order granting defendants' section 2-619 motion did not indicate it was "with prejudice," as it is the substance of the dismissal order that controls. See Dewan v. Ford Motor Co., 343 Ill. App. 3d 1062, 1069, 799 N.E.2d 391 (2003) ( Dewan) (where the plaintiff could amend his complaint after dismissal, even though the dismissal order stated it was "with prejudice," because the trial court stated on the record that it would allow plaintiff time to amend the complaint and the reason for dismissal could be cured by a simple technical amendment). Where a dismissal order does not specify that it is "without prejudice" and does not grant the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, the judgment is a final adjudication on the merits under Supreme Court Rule 273 (134 Ill. 2d R. 273). Dunavan v. Calandrino, 167 Ill. App. 3d 952, 956-57, 522 N.E.2d 347 (1988).

Based upon the rationale of Wizard Software that the doctrine of res judicata applies in claims litigation, this Court agrees with EVERGREEN that the causes of action are identical. This leaves only the question of whether the state court judgment was a final judgment. If the judgment in question includes an order to pay attorney fees, but leaves the calculation for a later date, the judgment is not final, at least for purposes of appeal. Dewan v. Ford Motor Co., 343 Ill.App.3d 1062, 1072, 799 N.E.2d 391, 399 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 2003); Longo v. Globe Auto Recycling, Inc., 318 Ill.App.3d 1028, 1033-34, 743 N.E.2d 667, 671-72 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 2001); Brown and Kerr, Inc. v. American Stores Properties, Inc., 306 Ill.App.3d 1023, 1028-29, 715 N.E.2d 804, 808-09 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1999). This Court is not aware of any case law where an Illinois court has drawn a distinction between finality for purposes of appeal and for purposes of res judicata.