Besic v. Lattof Chevrolet, 2012 IL App (1st) 103185

Besic filed a small-claims action against Lattof Chevrolet and General Motors; a jury found for defendants and judgment entered May 5, 2010.
Besic filed a posttrial motion on June 1, 2010, but did not obtain leave of court as required by Supreme Court Rule 287(b).
Defendants objected to the posttrial motion; the trial court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion due to the absence of leave.
Besic appealed the trial court’s ruling, arguing the court had jurisdiction and should rule on the posttrial motion.
The appellate court reviews jurisdiction de novo and considered whether leave of court is a jurisdictional requirement.
The court remands to permit the trial court to exercise its discretion on whether to allow the posttrial motion to be filed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does failure to obtain leave of court defeat jurisdiction?	Besic argues leave is not jurisdictional.	Lattof/GM contend lack of leave bars the motion.	Rule 287(b) is not jurisdictional; remand allowed discretion.
Did the trial court have jurisdiction to entertain the posttrial motion?	Court can rule on motion despite lack of leave if otherwise proper.	Lack of leave precludes hearing the motion.	Trial court had jurisdiction; must exercise discretion on motion.
Should the appeal be dismissed for lack of timely notice due to procedural flaws?	Notice was timely once leave petition was filed with the motion.	Procedural defect invalidates timely appeal.	Not dispositive; remand to address discretion on motion.

Ganci v. Blauvelt, 294 Ill. App. 3d 508 (1998) (leave requirement not a jurisdictional prerequisite; discretion governs)
Bolin v. Sosamon, 181 Ill. App. 3d 442 (1989) (petition for leave tolls periods; leave not jurisdictional)
Cedzidlo v. Marriott International, Inc., 404 Ill. App. 3d 578 (2010) (failure to obtain leave not jurisdictional defect)
In re A.H., 207 Ill. 2d 590 (2003) (jurisdictional analysis de novo; standards for review)