Background
Bank of America sued Edward Hambrick in Will County small-claims court to recover a $2,592.43 unpaid credit-card balance. Although Hambrick was served and appeared at an initial hearing, he did not file an appearance by the court-ordered deadline. He also failed to attend two later hearings despite receiving notice that the bank was seeking a default judgment. On July 29, 2025, the circuit court entered judgment for Bank of America for $2,592.43 plus $384.96 in costs.
On August 28, 2025—exactly 30 days after the default judgment—Hambrick electronically filed an appearance and a fee-waiver application, which the court granted. On September 18, more than 30 days after judgment, he filed a motion seeking relief under sections 2-1301(e) and 2-1401 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. He asserted jurisdictional objections and alleged Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations, and he requested a nunc pro tunc order concerning documents he had mailed to the circuit clerk. The circuit court denied relief, and Hambrick pursued only his section 2-1401 arguments on appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed the denial of Hambrick’s section 2-1401 petition. His general assertions of false representations, unfair collection practices, and improper venue did not allege specific facts establishing a meritorious defense. He also failed to show due diligence in the original action because he offered no excuse for missing the July 21 default-motion hearing or the July 29 trial and default hearing. The court further explained that filing an appearance and paying the fee—or obtaining a fee waiver—would not itself have waived a personal-jurisdiction objection.
The court also upheld the denial of nunc pro tunc relief because Hambrick was not seeking to place into the record a judicial act previously taken but omitted through clerical error. The clerk was not required to accept his mailed filings because he had neither filed them electronically nor obtained an e-filing exemption. Even if every mailing had been docketed, that would not alter his failure to appear and present his objections and defenses. Finally, the court held that Hambrick forfeited his due-process and court-access claims by failing to preserve them in the circuit court.
Key Takeaways
- A fact-based section 2-1401 petition must allege specific facts showing both a meritorious defense and due diligence; conclusory statutory allegations are insufficient.
- A nunc pro tunc order corrects the record to reflect judicial action actually taken but omitted through clerical error; it does not add rejected or unfiled party submissions.
- Constitutional arguments generally are forfeited when they were not raised and preserved in the circuit court.
Why It Matters
The nonprecedential Rule 23 order illustrates the procedural burden facing a litigant seeking to vacate a judgment more than 30 days after its entry. Attempts to submit documents do not substitute for appearing at noticed hearings, alleging concrete facts supporting a defense, and explaining why the litigant failed to defend the original action diligently.
The decision also distinguishes clerical correction through a nunc pro tunc order from efforts to supplement the record with documents that were never properly filed.