ANDERSON DUNDEE 53 L.L.C. v. TERZAKIS

No. 1-03-3708.

841 N.E.2d 6 (2005)

363 Ill. App.3d 145

298 Ill.Dec. 863

ANDERSON DUNDEE 53 L.L.C.; Winifred Boffo-McCoy; Carl Boffo; Thomas Caylor; Zorina Caylor; Clayton and Barbara Citrano; D C Compass, LLC; Edmunds 1500 Dundee, LLC; Hannah 1500, LLC; Howes 1500 Dundee, LLC; Huey 1500 Dundee, LLC; Kelley 1500, L.L.C.; Kluckhohn 1500 Dundee, LLC; Martinez 1500 Dundee LLC; Lawrence McCune; Barbara McCune; James D. and June M. Mercer; Mockingbird Resources LLC; 1500 West Dundee Morelan, LLC; Nelson Roofing 1500 Dundee, LLC; Oak Properties Dundee 53, LLC; Ralph C. Ogden III; Joni F. Ogden; Orth 1500 Dundee, LLC; Donald R. and Carlee Petelle; Roger and Carol Poirier; CW Purdom 1500 Dundee, L.L.C.; PW Purdom 1500 Dundee L.L.C.; Gilbert Reese; Frederick L. Richards and Jennifer Goodman, SFS, L.L.C.; Santini 1500 Dundee, L.L.C.; Suchy 1500, LLC; TF Real Estate 1500 LLC; Wentworth 1500 Dundee, LLC; and Redd Rasmussen 1500 LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. John TERZAKIS; Roxanne Gardner; and Urban Investment Trust, Inc., Defendants-Appellants (Rudy Mulder; Dundee 53, LLC; Master Dundee 53, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Manager Dundee 53, Inc., an Illinois corporation; CenterPoint Properties Trust; and Thomas P. Lowery and Associates, Ltd., Defendants).

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division.

Supplemental Opinion on Denial of Rehearing December 2, 2005.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Robert S. Reda, Sara D. Lund, Brian A. McNeil, Reda & Des Jardins, Ltd., Chicago, for appellants Urban Investment Trust, Inc.

Paul J. Kozacky, Jerome R. Weitzel, Jeffrey S. Becker, Paul J. Kozacky & Associates, P.C., and Kevin P. Caraher, Asperger Caraher LLC, Chicago, for appellant Roxanne Gardner.

Wayne R. Hannah, Jr., Gerald E. Fradin, Jason L. Rubin, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, and John J. Cullerton, David M. Rownd, Richard F. Bruen, Jr., FagelHaber LLC, Chicago, for appellees Anderson Dundee 53, L.L.C., et al.


Justice McNULTY delivered the opinion of the court:

The trial court held appellants in contempt for disobeying an order for the corporate appellant to turn over certain funds to a receiver. The court later denied appellants' motion to purge the contempt. On appeal from denial of the motion to purge appellants seek review of the original turnover order and the contempt order, as well as the finding that they failed to purge the contempt.

We hold that we lack...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases