CBA Record September 2017

or of a partnership is a mere nullity… and the whole action fails.” Alton Evening Telegraph v Doak, 11 Ill.App.3d 381 (5th Dist. 1973). Another possibility is that if the named plaintiff or defendant is a purported cor- poration or limited liability company, it might actually be merely an assumed name for the corporation or LLC, and not itself a corporation or a limited liability company. Arguably, a corporate assumed name is not a legal entity. Although a corporation may adopt an assumed name [805 ILCS 5/4.15(a)], the corporation must sue in its own corporate name and may not sue in its assumed name. By statute, a corporation is authorized “to sue and be sued, complain and defend, in its corporate name.” 805 ILCS 5/3.10(b); Roe v. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois , 225 Ill. App.3d 519, 528 (5th Dist. 1992). There is no statutory or common law authority for a corporation to sue or be sued, or to complain or defend, in an assumed name or any name other than its full, proper corporate name. 805 ILCS 5/3.10(b). The 304(a) Solution Supreme Court Rule 304(a) explicitly states that if a lawsuit involves multiple parties or multiple claims for relief, a judgment which disposes of anything less than all of the parties and all of the claims, rights and liabilities is not enforceable or appealable and is “subject to revision at any time”–unless and until the court either finds that there is no just reason for delay- ing enforcement or appeal of the order or enters an order which disposes of all parties and all claims, rights and liabilities. This means that without a so-called 304(a) finding, if a judgment is entered which is valid on its face, and for which the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, but there remains a lingering undisposed party or claim, the judgment cannot be enforced, cannot be appealed, and is subject to revi- sion at any time. Crucially, because the judgment is subject to revision at any time, the 30 days to attack the judgment under 735 ILCS 5/2-1301(e) and the two years to attack the judgment under 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 do not begin to run until either the court finds that there is no just reason

to impose a judgment on any party over whom it lacks that personal jurisdiction. In re M.W. , 232 Ill.2d 408, 426-27 (2009). A judgment that is void for lack of in personam jurisdiction may be attacked at any time and place, in any court, directly or collaterally, even for the first time on appeal. Marriage of Verdung , 126 Ill.2d at 547; Sarkissian , 201 Ill.2d at 103; City of Chicago v. Fair Employment Practices Com’n. , 65 Ill.2d 108, 112 (1976); People v. Thompson , 209 Ill.2d 19, 25 (2004); BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Mitchell , 2014 IL 116311, ¶ 45; Mugavero , 317 Ill.App.3d at 166; Lewis v. West Side Trust & Savings Bank , 377 Ill. 384, 385 (1941); J.C. Penny , 114 Ill.App.3d at 646. The void-for-lack- of-jurisdiction argument is so important and so crucial that the waiver rule does not apply. Mugavero , 317 Ill.App.3d at 166. If the purported service upon the defendant was by a private person and not by the local sheriff, the common law presumption of validity which attaches to personal service by the sheriff does not apply. Mitchell v. Tatum , 104 Ill.App.3d 986, 989 (1st Dist. 1982). Even in the case of service by the sheriff, if the service is substituted service on a member of the household pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2- 203(a), the presumption of validity of the service does not apply. Prudential Property

& Casualty Insurance Co. v. Dickerson , 202 Ill.App.3d 180, 184 (1st Dist. 1990). Sometimes it is possible to establish that the judgment creditor or the judgment debtor is not a recognized legal entity, which also renders the judgment void. All parties to a lawsuit must be either natural or artificial persons. Bavel v. Cavaness , 12 Ill.App.3d 633, 637 (5th Dist. 1973). There must be a plaintiff and a defendant, and each must be either a natural or artifi- cial person in being. Knowles v. Mid-West Automation Systems, Inc. , 211 Ill.App.3d 682, 688 (1st Dist. 1991). Where this rule is violated, and a judgment is entered involving an entity that is not recognized as a legal entity, the judgment is void ab initio . Relf v. Shatayeva , 2013 IL 114925, ¶ 22 (dead person); Capital One Bank, N.A. v. Czekala , 379 Ill.App.3d 737, 743 (3d Dist. 2008) (non-existent business); Reed v. Long , 122 Ill.App.2d 295, 297 (4th Dist. 1970) (dead person); Tyler v. J.C. Penny Co., Inc. , 145 Ill.App.3d 967, 972 (4th Dist. 1986) (common description of a group of stores); Lewis v. West Side Trust & Savings Bank, 377 Ill. 384, 385 (1941) (partnership, under then-existing law, changed by 735 ILCS 5/2-411). “A lawyer should know his client when he files his suit…. A suit brought in a name which is not that of a natural person, a corporation

28 SEPTEMBER 2017