Last week I experienced a Monty Python moment and, again, was faced with one of the odd truths of state practice.

Here’s what happened: I filed a motion to vacate a default judgment on the basis that service was improper due to an error in appointing the process server.  Specifically, there was no written motion to appoint the server and the Order granting the oral motion did not include the process server’s ID number as required by 735 ILCS 5/202(a-5) (“The motion and order must contain the number of the certificate…”).   Pretty clear language, right?  Nevertheless, the Judge denied my motion on that basis but granted it on the condition that my client submit to jurisdiction.  I agreed and the motion to vacate was granted but I was strangely dissatisfied; it’s pretty clear the rule requires something different than what happened here.  Yes, I got what I wanted but not for the right reason.  At this point I know better than to argue the point and I’ve seen and will likely see stranger episodes but this was a reminder that the only certainty in this business is uncertainty.  I understand that the judge didn’t want to open every judgment entered in his courtroom to collateral attack by recognizing the rule I cited but woah.

by: Charlie | September 14, 2012