BILLY W. LISK, by Power of Attorney for Property Brought by Pamela L. Johnson, and PEGGY W. LISK, by Power of Attorney for Property Brought by Pamela L. Johnson, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
DALE W. LISK and TAMMY L. LISK, Husband and Wife Each the Spouse of the Other, Defendants-Appellees.
from the Circuit Court of Schuyler County, No. 17-L-4; the
Hon. Michael L. Atterberry, Judge, presiding.
Attorneys for Appellant: Edward B. Tucker, of Mt. Sterling,
Attorneys for Appellee: Jeremy S. Karlin, of Barash &
Everett, LLC, of Galesburg, for appellee.
PRESIDING JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the
court, with opinion. Justices Turner and Holder White
concurred in the judgment and opinion.
STEIGMANN, PRESIDING JUSTICE
1 In December 2016, plaintiffs, Billy and Peggy Lisk, sued
defendant Dale Lisk and codefendant Tammy Lisk (collectively,
defendants), alleging that defendants owed plaintiffs money
related to Dale's farming operation. Throughout the
proceedings in this case, Dale and Tammy Lisk were involved
in a pending divorce case in Schuyler County.
2 After plaintiffs' initial complaint had been
transferred from Morgan County to Schuyler County, they filed
first, second, and third amended complaints, each of which
was dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief
could be granted. Their fourth amended complaint was filed in
September 2018, and in October 2018, Tammy, individually,
filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-615 of the
Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2016))
for failure to state a cause of action against her. In
February 2019, she also filed a supplemental motion to
dismiss pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code (id.
3 In May 2019, the trial court conducted a hearing on the
motions to dismiss and concluded that the fourth amended
complaint suffered from similar defects as the previous
complaints. The court then (1) dismissed the fourth amended
complaint for failure to state a cause of action against
Tammy, (2) granted the supplemental motion to dismiss on the
basis that the issues surrounding any debt were currently
being litigated in the divorce action, (3) dismissed the
complaint without prejudice, and (4) ordered a stay in the
proceedings until the divorce action concluded.
4 Plaintiff appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by
staying the proceedings in this case until the divorce case
is resolved. We disagree and affirm.
5 I. BACKGROUND
6 A. The Complaints
7 In December 2016, plaintiffs, Billy and Peggy Lisk, sued
defendants, Dale and Tammy Lisk, alleging that defendants
owed plaintiffs money related to Dale's farming
operation. Throughout the proceedings in this case, Dale and
Tammy Lisk were parties to a pending divorce case in Schuyler
8 Between December 2016 and July 2018, plaintiffs filed
several complaints, each of which were dismissed. In July
2018, the trial court dismissed the counts of the third
amended complaint related to Tammy without prejudice. At that
time, the court permitted the plaintiffs to conduct limited
9 In September 2018, plaintiffs filed their fourth amended
complaint against defendants. In October 2018, Tammy filed a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action
pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code (id. §
2-615). In December 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to
compel, alleging that Tammy failed to comply with