Illinois Appellate Lawyer Blog

The D’Agostinos were embroiled in prolonged litigation with Lynch and his lawyers. After a summary judgment for more than $1.9 million in the D’Agostinos’s favor, they began supplemental proceedings to collect. More litigation ensued, including an appeal, concerning a contempt proceeding against Lynch.

After all of that was resolved, the D’Agostinos issued citations to Murphy and Bryan Cave, respectively a lawyer and a law firm who had represented Lynch. Their theory was that Lynch, to avoid paying the D’Agostinos, had given the lawyers money. Their motion to compel Murphy and Bryan Cave to turn over the money was denied on November 7, 2007.

Within 30 days, the D’Agostinos filed a “Motion to Amend Memorandum and Judgment.” That motion asked for a finding under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (permitting an immediate interlocutory appeal). That motion was granted on December 12, 2007. And within 30 days, the D’Agostinos appealed the denial of the original turnover motion.

Murphy and Bryan Cave moved to dismiss the appeal. They argued that the November 7 order was final in “a section 2-1402 proceeding [citation proceeding by a judgment creditor] and that, therefore, under Rule 304(b)(4), it was immediately appealable without a special finding [under Rule 304(a)]” Because the appeal was filed more than 30 days after the November 7 order, the lawyers argued, the appellate court did not have jurisdiction over the case.

The First District Illinois Appellate Court agreed. “Here, the order in question foreclosed the D’Agostinos from collecting the funds in question from Murphy and Bryan Cave. Therefore, it was final and immediately appealable under Rule 304(b)(4). Because the D’Agostinos failed to file a notice of appeal from the November 7, 2007 order within 30 days, this court is without jurisdiction to review the order.”

The D’Agostinos argued that their motion to amend was a proper attack on the judgment, and thus extended the time to file their appeal. But the appellate court disagreed.

In order for a postjudgment motion to have the effect of tolling the time in which to appeal the judgment, that motion must be “directed against the judgment.” … A motion is said to be directed against the judgment when it attacks the judgment in one of the statutorily authorized ways, which include by requesting rehearing, retrial, modification, or vacation of the judgment … The party may also request “other relief” so long as that motion requests a change in the reasons underlying the judgment along the lines of the enumerated forms of relief … Here, the D’Agostino’s “Motion to Amend Memorandum Decision and Judgment” does not attack the judgment or its underlying rationale but, rather, accepts it and requests a Rule 304(a) finding. However, a Rule 304(a) finding was not necessary because of Rule 304(b)(4). … Therefore, it did not have the effect of tolling the time in which to appeal.

Read the whole case, D’Agostino v. Lymch, No. 1-08-0140 (5/7/08), by clicking here.

Michelle Townsend brought a product liability case Sears Roebuck on behalf of her minor son Jacob. Jacob was badly injured when he was run over by a lawn tractor operated in his yard. Sears allegedly designed and manufactured the tractor.

The accident happened in Michigan, where Michelle and Jacob resided. But Sears was domiciled in Illinois and made certain design and marketing decisions in Illinois. The parties fought over whether Illinois or Michigan law applied.

The trial court ruled that Illinois law applied. Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308, the trial court certified the question of the proper choice of law for immediate interlocutory appeal. The appellate court accepted the appeal, and affirmed the decision to apply Illinois law.

Sears appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which reversed and ruled that Michigan law should be applied to liability and damages issues.

The parties disputed the proper standard of review. Sears argued for de novo review, the usual standard for certified questions of law. But Michelle claimed that the choice of law issue presented questions of law and fact. She asserted therefore that a more deferential standard of review — manifest weight of the evidence — should be applied to a choice of law determination.

The Illinois Supreme Court agreed with Sears, and applied the de novo standard of review. “The circuit court did not hold an evidentiary hearing, weigh the testimony or assess the credibility of witnesses; the record consists solely of documents. Where the circuit court does not hear testimony and bases its decision on documentary evidence, the rationale underlying a deferential standard of review is inapplicable and review is de novo … In any event, while the methodology of the Second Restatement of Conflict of Laws may raise factual issues, the task of evaluating and balancing the choice-of-law principles embodied in the Second Restatement, as they apply to the facts, is a matter of law rather than fact and one that is more properly left to the judge … Because these issues ‘involve the selection, interpretation, and application of legal precepts,’ review is de novo…”

Read the whole case, Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., No. 103858 (11/29/07), by clicking here.

In Crull v. Sriratana, the Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court serves a sobering reminder that all arguments must be supported by record citations and legal authority. In Crull, a medical malpractice case, the appellate court struck plaintiff’s reply brief for lack of appropriate citations.

Rejecting plaintiff’s Joycian stream of consciousness style, the court stated:

The rules of procedure concerning appellate briefs are not mere suggestions, and it is within this court's discretion to strike the plaintiff's brief for failing to comply with Supreme Court Rule 341 … Rule 341(j) , which authorizes an appellant to file a reply brief, provides as follows: "The reply brief, if any, shall be confined strictly to replying to arguments presented in the brief of appellee and need contain only [a]rgument." 210 Ill.2d R. 341(j). Rule 341(h)(7) requires appellants to give reasons for their contentions "with citation of the authorities and the pages of the record relied on." 210 Ill.2d R. 341(h)(7). This court has stated that "[s]trict adherence to the requirement of citing relevant pages of the record is necessary to expedite and facilitate the administration of justice." … A contention that is supported by some argument but no authority does not meet the requirements of Rule 341 and is considered forfeited.

Read the whole case, Crull v. Sriratana, No. 4-06-0952 (10/11/07), by clicking here.

I mentioned IRMO Gutman in my January 3, 2008 entry regarding IRMO Knoerr. In IRMO Knoerr, the Second District Illinois Appellate Court overruled IRMO Gutman, which was only two months old at the time. On January 30, 2008, the Illinois Supreme Court announced it will review IRMO Gutman.

In IRMO Gutman, the Second District ruled that a pending civil contempt petition was a “separate claim” from the underlying divorce lawsuit. As a result, the divorce matters could be appealed while the contempt proceeding was pending without benefit of a Rule 304(a) order (trial court may allow appeal of final order of fewer than all claims). In IRMO Knoerr, another panel of the Second District ruled just the opposite and overruled IRMO Gutman.

Here’s to hoping the Illinois Supreme Court will settle the matter. I’ll keep you informed.

Blockbuster was sued in class action cases that alleged the company imposed improper penalties on customers who kept videos or DVDs longer than the prepaid period. In a Texas case, which had a class similar to the Illinois case, Blockbuster settled after the class was certified. Later, the Illinois court entered a provisional order certifying a national class.

Blockbuster moved to decertify the Illinois class based on new case law authority. The Illinois trial court denied the motion, but certified its order for appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308 (allowing interlocutory appeal of an order that involves “a question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and [when] … an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.”

This case is interesting because of the confused standard of review analysis. The First District Illinois Court of Appeals stated that the standard of review for a Rule 308 appeal is de novo. But then the appellate court identified the issue as: “[W]hether it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to apply judicial estoppel to bar Blockbuster from challenging the propriety of certifying a national litigation class due to its previous position in a similar class action in which it agreed to class certification for settlement purposes.” So is it “de novo” or “abuse of discretion”?

In this case, anyway, the appellate court stuck with the “abuse of discretion” standard. The court ruled “that the circuit court abused its discretion when it imposed the equitable doctrine of judicial estoppel to bar Blockbuster from challenging certification of a national litigation class in Illinois …”

This time, the difference between the standards of review probably did not matter. Blockbuster appealed, and showed abuse of discretion to the appellate court’s satisfaction. But should Blockbuster have been held to the stricter standard? And what if it’s the other way around next time? Should the consumer have to show abuse of discretion by the trial court? Or should the appellate court review the question de novo – i.e., without giving discretion to the trial court’s ruling.

Read the whole case, Cohen v. Blockbuster Entertainment, 1-06-2863 (9/26/07), by clicking here.

Glen Dresher’s son, 35 years old, was developmentally disabled and autistic. In 2001, Dresher was convicted of attempted murder when he struck his wife with his car several times. In 2006, Roseanne Dresher moved to have Glen removed as guardian of their son’s estate. That pro se motion was denied, but the court sua sponte temporarily removed Glen as guardian.

Glen appealed on the basis that the Probate Act did not give the court authority to order a temporary removal. The son’s Guardian Ad Litem moved to dismiss the appeal. The GAL argued that the order that temporarily removed guardianship rights was not a final order, and therefore Glen could not invoke the jurisdiction of the appellate court.

The First District Illinois Appellate Court agreed that it did not have jurisdiction. “… [T]he orders Glen appeals from were not final orders. The first October 16, 2006, order explicitly stated that, upon the court's own motion, Glen was ‘temporarily removed’ from his guardianship position. The second order similarly stated that the authority of Glen as co-guardian was suspended pending a hearing on the citation. Thus, there is no question that the trial court's orders did not 'finally determine, fix and dispose of the parties' rights'”

Glen also tried to invoke jurisdiction through Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304, which permits appeal of an otherwise nonfinal order when the trial court rules there is "no just cause or reason to delay enforcement or appeal."

In this case, the trial court did make a Rule 304 finding. But the appellate court rejected the trial court’s finding, stating, “… [T]he addition of that language did not alter the fact that the court's orders were not final as to any claim or party and were, thus, not subject to Rule 304(a). Such a finding by a trial court is not effective to transform a disposition that is not final in its own right into a final judgment.”

Glen was hardly a sympathetic appellant, but what if was right about the trial court not having authority to temporarily remove guardianship rights? This appellate opinion in effect says the trial court’s action cannot be contested on appeal.

Read the whole opinion, In re Guardianship of J.D., No. 1-06-3069 (9/28/07), by clicking here.

Almon Heastie was intoxicated, and in need of medical attention. Paramedics brought him to a hospital emergency room. Because he was yelling and abusive, Almon was placed on a cart and in restraints. For lack of space at the hospital, Almon was wheeled into the cast room, where he was left alone.

A fire broke out in the cast room, and Almon suffered severe injuries. He sued the hospital, one of the security guards, and a number of emergency room staffers. A jury returned a verdict for defendants, so Almon appealed. The appellate court (1) ruled that it was proper to preclude Almon’s evidence that the hospital deviated from a standard of care by not searching him for contraband; but (2) reversed and remanded for a new trial, ruling that the trial court improperly dismissed Almon’s res ipsa loquitor cause of action. Defendants then appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which agreed that plaintiff should have been allowed to put on a res ipsa case.

Almon also raised an argument in the Supreme Court. He disputed the appellate court’s ruling that affirmed preclusion of the standard of care evidence. However, Almon did not file a petition for leave to appeal that part of the appellate court’s ruling.

No matter. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Almon’s appeal still was proper. “Although plaintiff did not file a separate petition for leave to appeal, none was required. Plaintiff is entitled to raise the additional issue under [Illinois Supreme Court] Rule 318(a), which provides that in all appeals ‘any appellee, respondent, or coparty may seek and obtain any relief warranted by the record on appeal without having filed a separate petition for leave to appeal or notice of cross-appeal or separate appeal.’ … This court has invoked Rule 318(a) in finding that allowance of one party's petition for leave to appeal brings before this court the other party's requests for cross-relief.”

Be careful here: Illinois Supreme Court Rule 318 applies only to appeals from the appellate court to the Supreme Court. It does not apply to appeals from the circuit court to the court of appeals.

The whole opinion, Heastie v. Roberts, No. 102428 (11/1/07), is available by clicking here.

Oral arguments in the Illinois Supreme Court will be posted on the web. The court announced in a press release on 12/7/07 that video and audio recordings of arguments will be available beginning in January 2008.

Posting arguments made in the court will slice some stealth from a primary branch of Illinois government. Most people only vaguely understand what happens in the Supreme Court. They never see a Supreme Court argument, never hear an oral argument, and never see an opinion written by the Supreme Court. People never see how their Illinois Supreme Court Justices, who are elected officials, conduct court or themselves.

Making oral arguments available to the public will direct some sunshine on a fundamental branch of government that ordinarily conducts business behind closed doors.

For more details, the court’s press release is available by clicking here.

Recapping the previous two blog entries, a majority of the Illinois Second District Appellate Court held: (1) An amendment to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303(a) applied retroactively so that a premature Notice of Appeal preserved appellate jurisdiction. (See entry 10/29/07, two below.) (2) Separate postdissolution petitions in a divorce case present new claims, but not new actions, so a Rule 304(a) order must be issued to appeal a ruling on fewer than all of the issues. (See entry 10/30/07, directly below.)

The opinion was not without criticism. A special concurrence drew exactly opposite conclusions.

On the question of the retroactive application of the amendment to Rule 303(a), the Concurrence stated that Tamara had a vested right in the trial court’s judgment. That mitigated against a retroactive application of the amendment. To the contrary, the majority applied the amendment retroactively to this case, which allowed Darrell to appeal.

Without applying the amendment to this case, Darrell’s Notice of Appeal would have been premature and insufficient to establish appellate jurisdiction. The Concurrence stated: “Because the parties had a vested right in the final judgment the amendment to Rule 303 cannot operate retroactively to bestow us with jurisdiction to interfere with that right.”

The Concurrence also argued that Tamara’s petition for increased child support was a separate action, not just a separate claim within the same action, from Darrell’s request for a change in visitation. The Concurrence is immersed in lengthy case law analysis that is difficult to write about concisely in this space. Suffice it to say that the Concurrence reached an opinion 180 degrees different from the majority based on the very same case law.

To read the Concurrence, and the rest of the opinion in IRMO Duggan, No. 2-06-0061 (10/16/07), click here.

We continue with IRMO Duggan. (For Part One, with an explanation of the case facts, see blog entry of 10/29/07, directly below.) The next question the court took on was whether Tamara’s support petition and Darrell’s petition to set a visitation schedule presented (1) new claims in the same action, or (2) new and separate actions. Recall that Darrell appealed the child support order while his petition to set a visitation schedule still was pending. And the trial court did not issue a Rule 304(a) order (no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal of the judgment).

If the petitions presented new actions, as Darrell argued, then he could appeal the support order even if there was no ruling on the visitation petition. Indeed, he would have to. But Tamara argued that the petitions were different claims in the same action. If Tamara were right, then a Rule 304(a) order would be necessary to provide the basis for jurisdiction for Darrell to appeal the child support judgment while the visitation petition still was pending. (Rule 304(a) language is necessary to appeal a final order of fewer than all pending claims.)

The appellate court ruled that the petitions were “appropriately treated as new claims within the dissolution action. This approach enables the trial court to better serve the needs of families caught up in the often-painful aftermath of divorce by considering all of the relevant pre- and postdissolution proceedings together, rather than in isolation, and is consistent with the previous decisions of Illinois courts.”

So why did the court engage in so lengthy an analysis of this question, or even decide it at all? After all, Darrell was on the losing side here, but his appeal was saved by the retroactive application of the amendment to Rule 303(a), which allows a prematurely filed Notice of Appeal to establish appellate jurisdiction. (See blog entry for 10/29/07, directly below, for a fuller explanation.) Perhaps the court was not confident the retroactivity ruling would survive Illinois Supreme Court review. So providing an answer to the “one claim or new actions” question would obviate more briefing in the appellate court in the event of a reversal in the Illinois Supreme Court on the retroactivity question.

Next we’ll look at the special concurrence, which takes issue with the majority on the appellate jurisdiction issues. You can get the whole opinion, IRMO Duggan, No. 2-06-0061 (10/16/07), by clicking here.

In re Marriage of Duggan offers good analysis by the Second District Illinois Appellate Court of two issues that have been confounding the appellate and family law bars. We’ll look at the case, and an interesting concurring opinion that disagrees with the majority on the appellate issues, in this and the next few entries.

The facts are not complicated. The Duggans’ marriage was dissolved in January 2002. In August 2005, Tamara petitioned for an increase in child support. Pursuant to an agreement, an order was entered stating that Darrell would pay a percentage of his net income.

Darrell then made a timely motion to vacate the order because it did not specify a particular dollar amount for the payment, as is required by the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. At the same time, Darrell also filed a petition to establish specific visitation times.

In December 2005, the trial court ruled on Darrell’s motion to vacate, refusing to vacate the percentage award. The trial court did not make a Rule 304(a) finding. (No just reason to delay enforcement or appeal of the order.) Unhappy with the ruling, Darrell filed a Notice of Appeal within 30 days. When the Notice of Appeal was filed, the trial court still had not ruled on Darrell’s petition to set specific visitation times. That petition was resolved by a court order in May 2006.

The parties initially did not dispute appellate jurisdiction. But the court questioned whether it had the power to consider Darrell’s appeal of the percentage award. The first question was whether Darrell’s second petition −to set visitation times − was a claim within the same cause of action, or a whole new cause of action.

If it was a claim within the same action, then the order on the motion to vacate would require a Rule 304(a) finding in order to be appealable. Because there was not a Rule 304(a) finding, the appellate court would not have jurisdiction of Darrell’s appeal. If the petition to set visitation times constituted a new action, as Darrell argued, then Rule 304(a) language would not be necessary and the appellate court would have jurisdiction.

But the analysis was complicated by an amendment to an Illinois Supreme Court Rule that took effect while the appellate court was deliberating. Rule 303(a) was amended so “when a timely postjudgment motion has been filed, a notice of appeal filed before ‘the final disposition of any separate claim does not become effective until the order disposing of the separate claim is entered.’” This was exactly the situation in the Duggans’ case. So the first question was whether “amendments to Rule 303(a) should apply to all cases pending before the appellate court on the effective date, including this one (retroactive application) or only to those appeals filed after the effective date (prospective application).”

The appellate court concluded that the amendment to Rule 303(a) should apply retroactively. The keys to this decision were: (1) the amendment was procedural, not substantive, and (2) imposition of the amendment did not impair any rights that Tamara had.

The amendment was considered “procedural” because it “relate[d] solely to the manner in which an appeal of the final judgment on one claim in a multi-claim case may be heard.” That entails “the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress.” That is generally what Supreme Court Rules do − prescribe the method for advancing pending litigation.

Nor was retroactive application of amended Rule 303(a) unfair to Tamara − i.e, it did not impair a right she possessed. The court rejected the Concurrence’s position in this regard.

The special concurrence suggests that our ability to hear this appeal under the new Rule 303 (a) impairs Tamaara’s “right” to a dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. If this is a “right” at all, however, it is not a right that Tamara ”possessed when she acted,” as she has taken to action in reliance on our initial lack of jurisdiction. Indeed, she did not even raise the issue of our jurisdiction until we required her to do so via supplemental briefing. This fact is not simply an accident of the parties” skill in recognizing jurisdictional defects; it highlights the nature of jurisdiction − it is not a right possessed by the parties, but a prerogative of the court that we assert and determine.

I appreciate the conclusion that Tamara did not have a “right” to dismissal of Darrell’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. But I do take exception to the conclusion that jurisdiction “is not a right possessed by the parties.” In fact, litigants are granted access to the courts, and thus the courts are given jurisdiction, by the Illinois Constitution. While the court gets to determine the contours of jurisdiction, it is not merely a “prerogative of the court.”

In any event, the court concluded that retroactive application of the Amended Rule 303(a) was appropriate. So Darrell won the first prong of the argument.

We’ll look at other aspects of the case in forthcoming entries. But you can get the whole opinion, IRMO Duggan, No. 2-06-0061 (10/16/07), by clicking here.

The Illinois Supreme Court ordered rule amendments today that affect the sticky question of the timely filing of a notice of appeal. That’s important because a notice of appeal must be filed timely to gain appellate jurisdiction. The court amended Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303, which sets out the general scheme for filing a Notice of Appeal after a final judgment. The amendments, effective May 1, 2007, add protection for a party who appeals prematurely in certain circumstances. Here are the major points:

• “A notice of appeal filed after the court announces a decision, but before the entry of the judgment or order, is treated as filed on the date of and after the entry of the judgment or order.” Before this rule change, that same notice of appeal filed before entry of the judgment would be premature and would not invoke appellate jurisdiction.

• If an appeal is filed before a ruling on a timely filed postjudgment motion, “or before the final disposition of any separate claim, [the notice of appeal] becomes effective when the order disposing of said motion or claim is entered . . .” Before this change, that same notice of appeal would be premature and would not invoke appellate jurisdiction. The rule required that the premature appeal be withdrawn. A party could invoke appellate jurisdiction only with a new, timely notice of appeal.

• “. . . [W]here a postjudgment motion is denied, an appeal from the judgment is deemed to include an appeal from the denial of the postjudgment motion.” Thus, a second notice of appeal, to include the denial of a post-trial motion will not be necessary. However, the amendment requires a second notice of appeal if the postjudgment order changes the original judgment or resolves a separate claim.

The Supreme Court also tidied up Rule 341 on the form of briefs. These amendments, effective immediately, require footnotes to be double-spaced and a minimum 12-point type to be used “throughout the document, including quoted material and any footnotes.”

The amended rules are available by clicking here.