Raichand v. National Republic Bank

1 Citing case

  1. Illinois Bone & Joint Institute v. Kime

    396 Ill. App. 3d 881 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 16 times
    In Kime, the court specifically concluded that "[t]here is no rule of appellate practice which allows a party to appeal as a matter of right on an interlocutory basis from an order granting a ยง 2-1301(e) motion."

    A third reason for rejecting revestment is that it is an equitable principle, and we fail to see the fairness in allowing Kime to benefit from the untimely death of the plaintiffs first attorney. Fourth, Kime was unaware of the DWP when he presented the section 2-615 motion and, therefore did not knowingly choose to ignore the DWP and continue litigating. Wilkins, 149 Ill. App. 3d at 555 (rejecting revestment because "[u]pon being advised by the trial court that the cause had been dismissed, * * * defendant did not ignore the order or actively participate in proceedings inconsistent with the merits of the final judgment, but allowed her motion [to vacate defaults and answer the complaint] to be stricken from the * * * call demonstrating that defendant considered the dismissal order to be binding and final"); Raichand v. National Republic Bank of Chicago, 265 Ill. App. 3d 531, 533 (1994) ("The record shows that the defendants did not actively participate in the case once they learned it was dismissed"); Wilson v. Evanston Hospital, 257 Ill. App. 3d 837, 841 (1994) ("in the cases employing the revestment rule, it appears that the parties came before the court seeking judicial intervention, knowing of the court's previously entered order"). For any one of these four reasons, even if Kime's presentation of the section 2-615 motion in late November was inconsistent with the DWP entered in mid November, there was no revestment.