EMC Mortg. Corp. v. Kemp
Annotate this CaseIn 2005, a mortgage was entered into as to property in Naperville. The loan was eventually sold to EMC, which obtained a judgment of foreclosure in 2009. The debtor’s request to have the 2009 foreclosure judgment vacated was denied, as was her subsequent motion to reconsider that denial. To both of these adverse orders, Supreme Court Rule 304(a) language (that there was no just reason for delaying either enforcement or appeal) was added, and the debtor appealed. The appellate court, however, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed and affirmed. Although a foreclosure judgment is final as to what it adjudicates, it is not appealable until entry of an order approving the sale and directing distribution. The orders to which the circuit court added Rule 304(a) language were not themselves final for purposes of appeal. There is no court rule permitting appeal of the nonfinal orders at issue here, and Rule 304(a) cannot confer appellate jurisdiction where none exists.
Court Description:
This DuPage County dispute concerns appellate jurisdiction over circuit court orders entered during the pendency of a mortgage foreclosure action. In 2005, a mortgage was entered into as to property in Naperville. The loan was eventually sold to EMC, the appellee here, which obtained a judgment of foreclosure in 2009.
Appellant debtor’s request to have the 2009 foreclosure judgment vacated was denied, as was her subsequent motion to reconsider that denial. To both of these adverse orders, Supreme Court Rule 304(a) language was added, and the debtor appealed. The appellate court, however, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In this decision, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed and affirmed.
In explaining its decision, the supreme court said that, although a foreclosure judgment is final as to what it adjudicates, it is not appealable until entry of an order approving the sale and directing distribution.
The orders to which the circuit court added Rule 304(a) language were not themselves final for purposes of appeal. There is no supreme court rule permitting appeal of the nonfinal orders at issue here, and Rule 304(a) cannot confer appellate jurisdiction where none exists.
Because appellate jurisdiction was lacking, the appeal was properly dismissed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.