from the Circuit Court of Du Page County. No. 12-AR-1766
Honorable Ann Celine O'Halleren Walsh, Judge, Presiding.
JUSTICE BIRKETT delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion. Justices Hutchinson and Schostok concurred in the
judgment and opinion.
1 Plaintiff, Jeffrey Hartney, initiated a supplementary
proceeding to enforce a judgment against defendant, Robert
Bevis. Defendant appeals the denial of his motion to apply
his personal-property exemption (see 735 ILCS 5/12-1001(b)
(West 2016)) to certain stock he owns. We affirm, holding
that the involuntary dismissal of defendant's prior
appeal raising the same issue bars his current challenge.
2 I. BACKGROUND
3 Plaintiff obtained a judgment against defendant in an
action for fraudulent misrepresentation. See Hartney v.
Bevis, 2015 IL App (2d) 150005-U. In a supplementary
enforcement proceeding, defendant disclosed the existence of
stock he owns in a company called Law Weapons. Plaintiff
filed a motion for the turnover of the stock to the sheriff
for sale, with the proceeds to be applied in partial
satisfaction of the judgment. Defendant opposed the turnover,
claiming the stock as part of his personal-property
"wildcard" exemption under section 12-1001(b) of
the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/12-1001(b) (West
2016)). Defendant asked in the alternative that the turnover
be stayed pending this court's decision in
defendant's appeal of the underlying judgment. Defendant
attached to his response an affidavit from a certified public
accountant who averred, based on his review of the finances
of Law Weapons, that the stock had a "negative tax book
4 At a hearing on August 27, 2015, the court ordered that the
stock be relinquished to the sheriff and sold. The court
"[W]ith respect to the personal property, wildcard
exemption, I don't know that it's necessary for the
CPA to submit an affidavit as to book value or that we have a
hearing to determine the value. The value could be determined
at the Sheriff's sale and the wildcard exemption applied
to whatever the proceeds are. I mean, that will determine-I
know through experience that book value is not necessarily
market value. And the wildcard exemption should apply to
market value, not book value.
So the sale of a stock is the way to best determine what the
true market value is and to what extent the personal property
exemption can be applied."
court also denied defendant's alternative request for a
stay of the turnover.
5 On September 15, 2015, defendant filed a notice of appeal
from the August 27 order. In the notice, defendant
characterized the order as "requiring the turnover and
sale of the defendant['s] shares of stock,
before allowing the defendant to utilize his
personal property exemption for the stock." (Emphasis in
original.) The case was docketed as No. 2-15-0929. In his
docketing statement, filed September 24, 2015, defendant
identified one of the issues on appeal as "whether the
trial court improperly denied defendant['s] stay and
immediate use of his personal exemption, for his shares of
stock in his family business."
6 In December 2015, this court affirmed the underlying
judgment. See Hartney, 2015 IL App (2d) 150005-U. In
January 2016, the trial court stayed the sale of the stock,
pending further order. Meanwhile, in July 2016, this court
dismissed defendant's appeal in case No. 2-15-0929 for
his failure to file an appellate brief. In August 2016, the
trial court lifted the stay on the sale of the stock. In
October 2016, the sheriff sold the stock to plaintiff at
auction for $1.
7 In November 2016, defendant filed his "second motion
for exercise of his statutory wildcard exemption."
Defendant asked that the exemption be applied against the
stock itself and not the proceeds of the sale. At a hearing
in January 2017, the trial court declined to void the sale of