IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION

Rosie Lane,
Plaintiff,

v.

Mamie Tolbert; Erika Rhone; A Piece of Land LLC; D

& B Group; Fremont Investment & Loan; Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; and Unknown
Owners,

Defendants.

Mamie Tolbert,
Plaintiff,

v.
Case No. 07-M1-702104
Rosie Lane and All Unknown Tenants,

Defendants.

MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION

Now comes the Movant, Rosie Lane (Ms. Lane), by and through their attorneys, the

Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1006 and

General Order 12-1 of the Circuit Court of Cook County, and respectfully moves this Honorable

Court to consolidate the above-captioned cases. In support of her motion, movant states as

follows:

1. On ______________, Movants filed the above-captioned Complaint to Quiet Title and

for Other Relief, Rosie Lane v. Mamie Tolbert, Erika Rhone, A Piece of Land LLC, D &

B Group, Fremont Investment & Loan, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.,

and Unknown Owners, 07-CH-__________.

2. As alleged in her Complaint, Movant is the rightful owner of property commonly known
 as 6524 S. Evans Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60637 (the Home or Property), and legally

described as follows:

LOT 11 IN BLOCK 7 IN OAKWOOD SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTH OF THE

SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 38 NORTH,
RANGE 14, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY,
ILLINOIS

PIN: 20-22-222-033-0000.

3. In her Complaint, Ms. Lane alleges, inter alia, that the deed that purported to convey her

title to the property was obtained by fraud and is void ab initio or, in the alternative, must

be construed as an equitable mortgage pursuant to 765 ILCS 905/5.

4. The above-cited forcible entry and detainer action, Mamie Tolbert v. Rosie Lane and All

Unknown Tenants, 07-M1-702104, was filed on January 24, 2011. Ms. Lane filed her

appearance through counsel and jury demand in the forcible entry and detainer action on

February 6, 2011. No substantive rulings have been entered in the forcible entry and

detainer action. On February 14, 2011, the forcible entry and detainer action was

continued for status until March 9, 2011.

5. Section 2-1006 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for consolidation of cases

pending in the same Court as an aid to convenience, whenever it can be done without

prejudice to a substantial right. 735 ILCS 5/2-1006.

6. In cases where two separate actions involve an inquiry into the same event, the actions

may be tried together, but with separate docket entries, verdicts and judgments, the

consolidation being limited to a joint trial. Ad-Ex, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 247 Ill. App.

3d 97, 102-03 (1st Dist. 1993).

7. Here, it is the same issue which lies at the core of each action, namely, which party (Ms.

-2-
 Lane or Mamie Tolbert) holds valid title to the Property. If Movant is granted the relief

she seeks in her Complaint, then Mamie Tolbert has no right to possession of the

premises, and no right to evict Ms. Lane. Therefore, proper resolution of the quiet title

action and the forcible entry and detainer action turn on the same issue (the rightful

ownership of the Property) and on the same evidence, meaning that consolidation is

appropriate. Ad-Ex, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 247 Ill. App. 3d 97, 102-03 (1st Dist. 1993).

8. Indeed, absent consolidation, the forcible entry and detainer court will be left to rule on

the issue of possession without being able to adjudicate the underlying issue of title, since

the forcible entry and detainer court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Urbach v. Green,

15 Ill. App. 2d 186, 188 (1st Dist. 1957) (if there is a serious contest with respect to title

and the right to possession derived therefrom, the issue cannot be tried in a forcible

detainer action); Layzod v. Martin, et al., 305 Ill. App.1, 5 (4th Dist. 1940) (where the

right to possession is based on contested title, the issue of possession cannot be tried in a

forcible action, but instead the matter must be addressed in an action for ejectment);

Schultz v. OConnell, 239 Ill.App. 312, 313 (3rd Dist. 1925) (same).

9. .For these reasons, this Court has routinely granted motions to consolidate under

circumstances such as these, namely, where the defendant in a forcible entry and detainer

action contests the forcible entry and detainer action by claiming that she is the rightful

owner of the property, and where she seeks to establish that right. This Court has granted

such motions in at least fourteen other cases, the most recent of which are listed here.

See, e.g., Jeanell Sampson v. David Smith, et al., 06 M1 717462, consolidated into David

Smith v. Jeanell Sampson, et al., 06 CH 25945 (Maddux, J., January 8, 2007); Jeff Geisler

-3-
v. Melvin Crawford, III, et al., 06 M1 724416, consolidated into Melvin Crawford, III, et

al. v. Jeffrey Geisler, et al., 06 CH 23982 (Maddux, J., December 6, 2006); Winter Lake

Ltd. v. Marvin Oliviel, 06 M1 715598, consolidated into Marvin Oliviel v. Jeffery Davis

et. al., 06 CH 23056 (Maddux, J., November 16, 2006); Winter Lake Ltd. v. Burns, 06 M1

715599, consolidated into Burns v. Johnson, 06 CH 17070 (Maddux, J., August 29,

2006); Jamison v. Badgett, 06 M1 709834, consolidated into Badgett v. Jamison, et al.,

06 CH 13508 (Taylor, J., July 18, 2006); LaRon Esau v. Natalie Valentine, 06 M1

707242, consolidated into Natalie Valentine v. LaRon Esau et. al., 06 CH 13082

(Maddux, J., July 10, 2006); Calhoun v. Doyle, 06 M1 704615, consolidated into Doyle v.

Ignatius, et al., 06 CH 06921 (Hogan, J., June 6, 2006); 2543 East 78th St. Bldg. v.

Thompson, 06 M1 704069, and 2543 East 78th St. Bldg. v. Thompson, 06 M1 704070 (2

separate eviction cases, each filed as to one unit of a two-flat) consolidated into

Thompson v. Yao, 06 CH 05863 (Hogan, J., March 30, 2006); AFP v. Pamela Napier, 05

M1 725307, consolidated into Pamela Napier v. AFP et.al., 05 CH 21038 (Maddux, J.,

January 12, 2006).

WHEREFORE, Movant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:

a. Consolidate the above-captioned forcible entry and detainer action, Mamie

Tolbert v. Rosie Lane and All Unknown Tenants, 07 M1 702104, into the above-

captioned quiet title action, Rosie Lane v. Mamie Tolbert, Erika Rhone, A Piece of

Land LLC, D & B Group, Fremont Investment & Loan, Mortgage Electronic

Registration Systems, Inc., and Unknown Owners, 07-CH-_______, and

b. Strike all briefing schedules and hearing dates in the above-captioned forcible

-4-
 entry and detainer action, Mamie Tolbert v. Rosie Lane and All Unknown Tenants,

07 M1 702104, with all further actions in the forcible entry and detainer action

subject to the further orders of the Circuit Court of Cook County, County

Department, Chancery Division.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________________
One of the attorneys for Rosie Lane

Lea A. Weems
James A. Brady
Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago
111 West Jackson, 3rd Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 347-8304
Attorney No. 91017

-5-