In support of its "jurisdictional error" finding, the court cited to In re Estate of Barth , 339 Ill. App. 3d 651, 659-61, 275 Ill.Dec. 84, 792 N.E.2d 315 (2003), a First District case. Ostern , 2014 IL App (2d) 131236, ¶¶ 30-31, 387 Ill.Dec. 699, 23 N.E.3d 391.

¶ 39 We note that following Gebis, courts have recognized some instances where a claim may be filed in a guardianship estate after the ward has died. In her pro se brief, plaintiff relies on In re Estate of Barth, 339 Ill. App. 3d 651 (2003), regarding jurisdiction, but Barth can be distinguished from the case at bar because Barth represents one such exception to Gebis. In Barth, the probate court denied a motion to vacate a pretrial settlement order in the guardianship estate.

“Concomitantly, because the guardian is powerless to pay a claim filed against a deceased ward's guardianship estate, ‘the trial court supervising the guardianship estate is powerless to adjudicate such claims, as jurisdiction lies only where the court can grant the particular relief requested.’ ” (Emphasis omitted.) In re Estate of Barth , 339 Ill.App.3d 651, 660, 275 Ill.Dec. 84, 792 N.E.2d 315 (2003) (quoting Gebis , 186 Ill.2d at 194, 237 Ill.Dec. 755, 710 N.E.2d 385). ¶ 29 However, this court has previously called into question the continuing vitality of Gebis in light of the supreme court's subsequent holdings in Steinbrecher v. Steinbrecher, 197 Ill.2d 514, 259 Ill.Dec. 729, 759 N.E.2d 509 (2001), Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 199 Ill.2d 325, 264 Ill.Dec. 283, 770 N.E.2d 177 (2002), and People ex rel. Graf v. Village of Lake Bluff, 206 Ill.2d 541, 276 Ill.Dec. 928, 795 N.E.2d 281 (2003).

Pursuant to that doctrine, a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction bars all subsequent litigation between the parties regarding the same issues as well as issues that could have been decided in the first action. Piagentini, 387 Ill. App. 3d at 890; In re Estate of Barth, 339 Ill. App. 3d 651, 667 (2003). Accordingly, a final judgment can serve as the basis to apply the doctrine of res judicata even though that judgment is being appealed.

Additionally, like mandamus, section 2-1401 relief is very limited. Such relief addresses only factual issues, not legal ones (People v. Lawton, 335 Ill.App.3d 1085, 1087, 269 Ill.Dec. 932, 781 N.E.2d 1122, 1124 (2002)), and requires a showing of due diligence (In re Estate of Barth, 339 Ill.App.3d 651, 662, 275 Ill.Dec. 84, 792 N.E.2d 315, 324 (2003)).         We recognize the Second District has reached an opposite conclusion as to both section 2-1401 petitions and mandamus petitions.

Illinois Founders Insurance Co. v. Guidish, 248 Ill. App. 3d 116, 120, 187 Ill. Dec. 845, 618 N.E. 2d 436 (1993). However, when a party appeals the judgment in one case, it is possible that conflicting judgments can result by allowing the judgment in the first case to serve as the basis for res judicata in the second case because the judgment in the first case could be reversed on appeal. Barth, 339 Ill. App. 3d at 668, 275 Ill. Dec. 84, 792 N.E. 2d 315; Illinois Founders Insurance Co., 248 Ill. App. 3d at 120-21, 187 Ill. Dec. 845, 618 N.E.2d 436. To avoid such a result, Illinois courts have recognized that it is appropriate to delay a decision in the second case pending the appeal of the first case. Barth, 339 Ill. App. 3d at 668, 275 Ill. Dec. 84, 792 N.E. 2d 315; Illinois Founders Insurance Co., 248 Ill. App. 3d at 121, 187 Ill. Dec.

In civil cases, "[t]he rule has been settled that where a judgment in one case has successfully been made the basis for the judgment in a second case, the second judgment will stand as res judicata, although the first judgment be subsequently reversed." State Life Insurance Co. v. Board of Education of Chicago, 401 Ill. 252, 257 (1948); see also Kensington's Wine Auctioneers and Brokers, Inc. v. John Hart Fine Wine, Ltd., 392 Ill. App. 3d 1, 17 (2009); In re Estate of Barth, 339 Ill. App. 3d 651, 668 (2003); Illinois Founders Insurance Company v. Guidish, 248 Ill. App. 3d 116, 120-21 (1993). Application of the rule, however, can lead to conflicting judgments.

Illinois Founders Insurance Co. v. Guidish, 248 Ill. App. 3d 116, 120, 187 Ill. Dec. 845, 618 N.E.2d 436 (1993). However, when a party appeals the judgment in one case, it is possible that conflicting judgments can result by allowing the judgment in the first case to serve as the basis for res judicata in the second case because the judgment in the first case could be reversed on appeal. [In re Estate of] Barth, 339 Ill. App. 3d 651,] 668, 275 Ill. Dec. 84, 792 N.E.2d 315; Illinois Founders Insurance Co., 248 Ill. App. 3d at 120-21, 187 Ill.Dec. 845, 618 N.E.2d 436. To avoid such a result, Illinois courts have recognized that it is appropriate to delay a decision in the second case pending the appeal of the first case. Barth, 339 Ill. App. 3d at 668, 275 Ill. Dec. 84, 792 N.E.2d 315; Illinois Founders Insurance Co., 248 Ill. App. 3d at 121, 187 Ill.Dec. 845, 618 N.E.2d 436; Wiseman v. Law Research Service, Inc., 133 Ill. App. 2d 790, 793, 270 N.E.2d 77 (1971).

Id. ¶ 31. In support of its "jurisdictional error" finding, the court cited to In re Estate of Barth, 339 Ill.App.3d 651, 659-61 (2003), a first district case. Ostern, 2014 IL App (2d) 131236, ¶¶ 30-31.

Id. ¶ 31. In support of its "jurisdictional error" finding, the court cited to In re Estate of Barth, 339 Ill.App.3d 651, 659-61 (2003), a first district case. Ostern, 2014 IL App (2d) 131236, ¶¶ 30-31.