Articles Posted in Illinois Supreme Court Rules

William Huber filed a lawsuit to dissolve the American Accounting Association. The Association asked the trial court to dismiss the lawsuit, which it did.

Huber appealed. He mailed his Notice of Appeal to the court, but it arrived two days after the 30-day deadline.

That would have been okay had Huber included an affidavit (required of a non-lawyer) or certificate (required of a lawyer) of mailing with the Notice of Appeal. But Huber did not. He argued that a postmark on the envelope, dated two days before the 30-day deadline expired, was sufficient proof of mailing within the time required.

But the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Huber’s so-called postmark was not a postmark at all. This is what the supreme court said:

What plaintiff identifies as a “postmark,” appearing in the upper right hand corner of the envelope, is actually a postage label from an Automated Postal Center (APC). An APC is a self-service kiosk, generally located in post office lobbies, that allows customers to mail letters and packages, buy postage, look up ZIP Codes, and access other postal services, such as “USPS Tracking,” and certified mail. …  The postage label at issue here reveals on its face that it was dispensed at an “APC.” An “APC label does not constitute an official U.S. postmark.”

The APC label shows only a “Date of sale” of “04/03/13.” [Two days before the deadline.) The date of sale is not necessarily the date plaintiff placed the envelope in the mail and the post office took custody of it. … Thus … the APC label at best indicates that plaintiff may have mailed his notice of appeal on April 3, 2013. The APC label does not establish that plaintiff, in fact, did so.

The late Notice of Appeal deprived the appellate court of jurisdiction, so the supreme court affirmed dismissal of Huber’s appeal.  Here’s the link to the supreme court’s opinion in Huber v. American Accounting Association, 2014 IL 117293 (11/20/14).

The Illinois Supreme Court did not decide whether a postmark would suffice in lieu of an affidavit or a certificate. But take a look at IRMO Sheth, an appellate court opinion explained three postings below. The Sheth court certainly falls in the camp that a postmark alone does not meet the Illinois Supreme Court Rules.

Anita and Sushil Sheth got divorced. Sushil was custodian on several of the couple’s two children’s financial accounts. Anita asked the trial court to remove Sushil as custodian. The trial court did so, and also denied Sushil’s reconsideration request.

Sushil appealed. He apparently mailed the notice of appeal within the 30-day jurisdictional requirement. But his “Certificate of Service” was not notarized. The court received Sushil’s notice of appeal after the 30 days passed.

The First District Illinois Appellate Court dismissed Sushil’s appeal. The court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Sushil’s arguments because Sushil did not submit proper proof — that is, a notarized Proof of Service — that the notice of appeal had been mailed within the 30-day deadline  So even though Sushil’s proof of service included all of the required information, his appeal was dismissed for lack of a notary public’s stamp.

Here’s how the court explained it:

[T]here was no certificate by an attorney or affidavit by a nonattorney as required by [Illinois Supreme Court] Rule 12(b)(3). While Sushil submitted a “Certificate of Service,” that document was not notarized, meaning that it cannot be considered an affidavit. Our supreme court has stated that “Illinois courts have defined the term [‘affidavit’] in consistent fashion for over 100 years,” and that “an affidavit must be sworn to, and statements in a writing not sworn to before an authorized person cannot be considered affidavits.” . . .  Here, since Sushil’s “Certificate of Service” was not sworn to before an authorized person, it cannot be considered an affidavit and, therefore, Sushil has not complied with Rule 12(b)(3)’s requirement that proof of mailing be in the form of a certificate by an attorney or an affidavit of a nonattorney.

Read the whole case, IRMO Sheth, 2014 IL App (1st) 132611, by clicking here. 

After he was injured in an accident, Juan Zamora sued his employer, Newsboy Delivery Systems, and two individuals, Cherie and Richard Payne. Zamora claimed their negligence caused the accident.

The trial court dismissed Newsboy because Zamora’s claim against his employer was barred by the Illinois Worker’s Compensation Act. The dismissal order included a finding under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) [no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal of the order]. Zamora asked the court to reconsider the dismissal. That request for reconsideration extended the time he had to appeal [30 days from the ruling on the reconsideration request]. Zamora’s request for reconsideration was denied.

The Paynes filed a third-party complaint for contribution against Newsboy. About two years later that complaint was dismissed. Zamora got a second Rule 304(a) finding, and after the rest of the claims were dismissed, Zamora appealed the two year-old order that dismissed his claim against Newsboy.

The Second District Illinois Appellate Court dismissed Zamora’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because:

Once a court has made a Rule 304(a) finding, it is not necessary for the court to make another such finding when it denies a motion to reconsider … This is because the denial of a motion to reconsider is not a judgment and is not appealable in itself.

So Zamora had to appeal within 30 days of the denial of his reconsideration request. He blew that deadline, and the second Rule 304(a) finding was irrelevant.

Read the whole case, Zamora v Montiel, 2013 IL App (2d) 130579, by clicking here.

The Westin North Shore is a hotel in the northern suburbs of Chicago. The hotel was used as collateral for a multimillion dollar loan to the hotel owner. Five Mile Capital Westin had a subordinate interest in the loan. After the owner defaulted on his payments, Berkadia National Mortgage was named as special servicer of the hotel.

Berkadia got an offer to buy the hotel. But because the market for hotel properties fell, the offer did not cover the amount of the loan. If Berkadia accepted the offer, Five Mile Capital would be left with big losses.

So Five Mile Capital sued Berkadia, and asked the trial court for an injunction to stop the sale. Five Mile also recorded a lis pendens [formal notice that property title is disputed] on the property. Berkadia asked the trial court to dismiss the complaint and to lift the lis pendens. The trial court refused to dismiss the complaint, but did quash the lis pendens. The trial court also treated plaintiff’s position as a request for a preliminary injunction against the sale of the property. Then the trial court denied the preliminary injunction.

Five Mile appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction and the order quashing the lis pendens. Five Mile went to the appellate court under the rule allowing appeals of preliminary injunctions even before there is a ruling on the entire case. [Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307 allows appeals of certain interlocutory orders, including denials of preliminary injunctions.] So the first question was: Did the appellate court have jurisdiction to review the order that quashed the lis pendens? It would, if the order to quash were a preliminary injunction; it would not if the order to quash were a more typical interlocutory order.

The First District Illinois Appellate Court ruled it did not have jurisdiction to review the order to quash before the entire case was final because quashing a lis pendens is not a preliminary injunction. Here’s how the appellate court explained it.

As with an order quashing a discovery subpoena, an order quashing a lis pendens is simply an administrative order that deals with how the case proceeds before the court, and it can be issued by any court without resorting to its equitable powers. It then follows that, similarly to a discovery order, an order quashing a lis pendens is not an interlocutory order that is appealable under Rule 307(a)(1). We accordingly lack jurisdiction over that portion of the circuit court’s order.

In the end, the trial court’s ruling denying the preliminary injunction [not preventing the sale] was affirmed. Read the whole opinion, Five Mile Capital Westin v. Bekadia Commercial Mortgage, 2012 IL App (1st) 122812 (12/24/12), by clicking here.

Barbara Kemp’s mortgage was held by EMC Mortgage Corporation. EMC filed a foreclosure action against Barbara because she defaulted on her payments. Eventually, EMC asked for and got a summary judgment foreclosure. Kemp then asked for reconsideration of the summary judgment and for a stay of the judicial sale of the property. Both were denied.

On the day the judicial sale was scheduled, Kemp made an emergency request to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and then to dismiss EMC’s complaint. Kemp’s request to vacate the judgment was made under Illinois Civil Procedure Act Rule 2-1401 [allowing final judgments to be vacated if there is new evidence and a meritorious defense]. The trial court also stayed the judicial sale of the property for 45 days. The court added Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) language to its order [allowing immediate appeal of final judgments that do not dispose of the entire case].

Kemp appealed two of the trial court’s orders: the order denying her motion for reconsideration, and the order denying her motion to vacate. The Second District Illinois Appellate Court dismissed Kemp’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The Illinois Supreme Court did the same for two reasons.

Reason I. The orders denying the reconsideration request, and denying the Rule 2-1401 request to vacate the foreclosure judgment were not final and appealable because the trial court had not approved the sale of the property nor directed distribution of it. Here’s what the Illinois Supreme Court said:

It is well settled that a judgment ordering the foreclosure of mortgage is not final and appealable until the trial court enters an order approving the sale and directing the distribution … The reason such a judgment is not final and appealable is because it does not dispose of all issues between the parties and it does not terminate the litigation … Specifically, although a judgment of foreclosure is final as to the matters it adjudicates, a judgment foreclosing a mortgage, or a lien, determines fewer than all the rights and liabilities in issue because the trial court has still to enter a subsequent order approving the foreclosure sale and directing distribution … Accordingly, it is the order confirming the sale, rather than the judgment of foreclosure, that operates as the final and appealable order in a foreclosure case.

Reason 2. “A second problem with Kemp’s appeal lies with the fact that, while a judgment of foreclosure is a final order, without Rule 304(a) language added to it, the judgment is not appealable … Kemp did not seek to make the judgment of foreclosure appealable under Rule 304(a).”

Kemp argued that the orders denying her request for reconsideration of the summary judgment and her emergency request to vacate the judgment of foreclosure were appealable because the trial court included Rule 304(a) language in those orders. But the Illinois Supreme Court rejected that argument because “the inclusion of a special finding [Rule 304(a) language] in the trial court’s order cannot confer appellate jurisdiction if the order is in fact not final.”

Finally, Kemp argued in favor of appellate jurisdiction because the orders she attacked were, she said, void. The Illinois Supreme Court called that argument “meritless.” “This legal proposition [void order rule] … does not act to confer appellate jurisdiction on a reviewing court if such jurisdiction is otherwise absent … Rather, the rule allows a party the ability to always raise the issue of whether an order is void in an appeal where appellate jurisdiction exists and the case is properly before the court of review … As we have pointed out, there is no supreme court rule that permits the appeal of the nonfinal orders that Kemp has appealed in this case.”

Read the whole opinion, EMC Mortgage Corp. v. Kemp, 2012 IL 11341 (12/28/12), by clicking here.

Brandon Wilson required surgery for a fractured femur. He had a heart attack during surgery, which resulted in brain injury from lack of oxygen. Brandon sued Edward Hospital, where the surgery was done, and the doctors who treated him there.

To win against the hospital, Brandon had to show that the doctors were the hosptal’s actual or apparent agents. The hospital argued that the doctors were neither, and asked for summary judgment. The trial court gave the hospital judgment on the actual agent theory, but, ruling a question of fact existed, denied the hospital’s request on the apparent agency theory. Brandon then voluntarily dismissed his complaint.

One year later, Brandon re-filed, alleging the apparent agency theory against the hospital. The hospital asked the trial court to dismiss the re-filed complaint, arguing that it was barred by res judicata [second lawsuit alleging the same cause of action against the same parties not allowed]. The trial court refused to dismiss the re-filed complaint. But the court certified a question for immediate appeal – i.e., whether the re-filed complaint was a violation of the rule against claim-splittting and should be barred by res judicata.

The Second District Illinois Appellate Court felt the re-filed complaint was improper claim-splitting, so it reversed the trial court. Brandon then appealed to to the Illinois Supreme Court. The supreme court agreed that plaintiff could legitimately re-file the apparent agency theory. The re-filed complaint did not improperly split a claim because “actual agency” and “apparent agency” were not separate claims. There was only one claim, negligence. “Actual agency” and “apparent agency” were different elements of liability that could go toward proof of the single claim of negligence.

This case is important for the appellate practitioner because the supreme court ruled that the trial court order giving summary judgment to the hospital on “actual agency” was not a final order. If not final, then it would not be appealable even under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a). [Allowing instant appeal of certain final judgments before the whole case is finished.]

Read the whole opinion, Wilson v. Edward Hospital, 2012 IL 112898 (12/13/12), by clicking here.

Elizabeth Demaret got a better job in New Jersey, so she wanted to move there from Illinois with her children. She had sole custody of her four children. James, her ex-husband, had parenting time in accord with a parenting agreement that an Illinois trial court incorporated into the divorce judgment.

Elizabeth asked the trial court for permission to move the children to New Jersey. James fought the request because he felt his time with the children would suffer and diminish. He asked the trial court to award him attorney fees he would incur fighting Elizabeth’s removal request.

The trial court denied Elizabeth’s request to move the children to New Jersey. Elizabeth appealed, but James’s fee request still was pending in the trial court. James argued that was enough to deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction to consider the appeal ― that is, (1) no appellate jurisdiction because (2) the order denying Elizabeth’s request to move the children was not final and appealable because (3) James’s fee petition still was pending in the trial court.

The appellate court acknowledged a split among the Illinois courts on whether a post-dissolution petition was:
• “a new claim within the original dissolution proceedings,” which would preclude appellate jurisdiction, or
• “a separate action from the original dissolution proceeding,” in which case appellate court jurisdiction exists upon a final resolution of that [the removal] petition under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 301 … regardless of the pendency of an unrelated petition.

The First District Illinois Appellate Court concluded “that postdissolution proceedings are generally new actions.” But that did not end the discussion. The court also ruled that James’s pending request for attorney fees was “wholly unrelated to the issues presented in [Elizabeth’s] removal petition.” So the appellate accepted jurisdiction over the case.

According to this appellate court, a split remains over whether a postdissolution petition presents a new action from the original divorce action or a new claim in an existing divorce case. In this case, Elizabeth won the battle over appellate jurisdiction. But she lost the war. The appellate court accepted jurisdiction over her appeal, then affirmed the trial court’s ruling that prevented her from moving with her children to New Jersey.

Read the whole opinion, IRMO Demaret, 2012 IL App (1st) 111916, which reviews the split of authority, by clicking here.

Arthur and Shirley Susman got divorced. The divorce judgment incorporated a marital settlement agreement, which reserved two subjects to be resolved later: (1) certain tax liabilities, and (2) allocation of certain personal property.

A few months later, Arthur asked the trial court to modify the judgment. He claimed there had been a mutual mistake of fact regarding a different tax liability. The trial court denied Arthur’s request.

Arthur appealed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 301, which allows appeals from final judgments. But the First District Illinois Appellate Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Arthur’s appeal. The appellate court ruled that Arthur’s appeal of the order denying his request to modify the judgment was not appealable because other questions had been reserved by the trial court. Here’s how the appellate court explained it:

Here, the trial court did not resolve the allocation of the parties’ personal property and pre-2008 tax liabilities. Because the parties could not fully agree what they would divide and how they would divide it, the court reserved the issues for further
consideration, and the order was not enforceable in that specific regard …The court thus entered what is known as a bifurcated judgment pursuant to section 401(b) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act … which authorizes a court to
reserve issues in a dissolution judgment for further consideration … Although the court’s actions might have been statutorily authorized, they did not result in a final, appealable order for the purposes of conferring jurisdiction on this court … This lack of finality regarding the dissolution action is evident from the record inasmuch as the parties continued to litigate the division of personal property.

Because the dissolution judgment was not final and appealable, the order disposing of Arthur’s motion to modify the judgment therefore cannot be considered “final.” … Arthur cannot seek to appeal an issue arising from the dissolution proceedings when others remain pending, and we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The policy against avoiding piecemeal appeals compels the result in this case.

In passing, the appellate said Arthur could have appealed the “propriety of the [trial court’s original] bifurcated judgment.” But Arthur did not appeal that question, so the whole appeal was dismissed. Read the opinion, IRMO Susman, 2012 IL App (1st) 112068, by clicking here.

Peggy Lee Hall claimed she was injured when she slipped on ice in a parking lot owned by Naper Gold Hospitality LLC. She sued Naper, but the company got summary judgment because Hall did not show facts that there had been an unnatural accumulation of ice.

Hall appealed Naper’s summary judgment. But the Second District Illinois Appellate Court dismissed the appeal “because of the flagrant and, frankly, appalling violations of supreme court rules committed by plaintiff’s [Hall] attorney … and his law firm … in the handling of this appeal.”

These were Hall’s violations:
• Hall’s statement of jurisdiction had “nothing whatsoever to do with the instant appeal.”
• The original statement of facts had been pasted into Hall’s brief from an appeal in a different case. And when Hall’s lawyer amended the statement of facts, he (1) filed it without asking for permission to do so, and (2) what he did file “barely acquaint[ed] this court with the procedural history of the case or the issues involved.”
• Illinois Supreme Court “Rule 341(h)(3) requires appellant [in this case, Hall] to include a ‘concise statement of the applicable standard of review for each issue. with citation to authority.’ … Plaintiff’s brief violates this rule in that nowhere is a standard of review set forth.”
• These violations “came on top of plaintiff’s filing of a noncompliant appendix.” The appellate court twice ordered Hall’s lawyer to file the appendix, the second time under threat of dismissal of the appeal.
• Hall’s legal argument contained insufficient citation to supporting authority.

The appellate court acknowledged the harshness of its ruling, “but where the jurisdictional statement and the statement of facts do not even pertain to the case on appeal but were copied wholesale from an unrelated brief, where the brief contains no standards of review, and where, most important, plaintiff’s arguments are conclusory and not supported by any authority, we have no choice but to strike the brief and dismiss the appeal.”

Read the whole case, Hall v. Naper Gold Hospitality LLC, 2012 IL App (2d) 111151, by clicking here.

While their divorce case was pending, Robert and Cindy Andrews signed a listing agreement to sell their house. The real estate broker, VC&M, found a buyer. But the Andrewses rejected the offer, which was for less than their asking price. Instead, Cindy decided to stay in the house, so she agreed to purchase Robert’s half. As part of their marital settlement agreement, Robert transferred his interest to Cindy.

VC&M wanted a commission for introducing the prospective buyer, but the Andrewses refused to pay. So VC&M sued for breach of contract. The Andrewses asked the trial court to dismiss the complaint. VC&M filed an opposition memorandum electronically. Before VC&M’s e-filing, the parties had not stipulated to allow e-filings.

The trial court agreed that VC&M did not state a claim, so the complaint was dismissed. Thirty days later, in another electronic filing, VC&M asked the trial court to reconsider the dismissal. Another month later, VC&M filed a paper copy of its reconsideration request. Another month after that, VC&M e-filed a notice of appeal.

The Andrewses asked the appellate court to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. They argued that the court could not consider the appeal because VC&M had not complied with the local appellate rules for e-filing. The Second District Illinois Appellate Court agreed, and dismissed VC&M’s appeal. This is how the appellate court explained it:

The trial court dismissed with prejudice the amended complaint on February 23, 2011. The record shows that plaintiff [VC&M] e-filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal 30 days later on March 25, 2011. However, as the case was not properly designated an e-filing case, the e-filing of the motion to reconsider violated Local Rule 5.03 and was a nullity. Pursuant to [Illinois Supreme Court] Rule 303, the time to file a postjudgment motion or a notice of appeal elapsed on March 25, 2011 … The hard copy of the motion to reconsider did not extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal. Because the action was not properly designated for e-filing from the beginning, the e-filed postjudgment motion was meaningless and the hard-copy postjudgment motion was filed late.

LocalRule 5.03(d) further dictates that, even in a case properly designated for e-filing, all appellate documents shall be filed in the “conventional manner.” … The conventional manner of filing in the circuit court is in the form of paper documents submitted to the clerk of the court as is done in cases that are not e-filing cases …

Despite Local Rule 5.03’s express prohibition of e-filing appellate documents, plaintiff e-filed the notice of appeal. Plaintiff never filed a paper copy of the notice of appeal. Several months have elapsed since the trial court dismissed the amended complaint and denied the motion to reconsider, the appeal must be dismissed because the e-filed notice of appeal violated Local Rule 5.03 and was also untimely under Rule 303.

This court considered a notice of appeal as an appellate document that has to be filed in the “conventional” manner. A notice of appeal is filed in the trial court. So why not allow it to be filed it electronically? (For that matter, what is the justification for not allowing “post-judgment enforcement proceeding documents and notices” to be e-filed?) The rules should make it easier, and thus less costly to litigants, to file papers with the court. The extra layers of regulation in these local e-filing rules serve just the opposite purpose.

Read the whole opinion, VC&M, Ltd. v. Andrews, 2012 IL App (2d) 110523 (4/16/12), by clicking here.