2022 IL App (2d) 210487-U
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background:
- Castleton sued Storage Concepts after slipping at defendant’s ice rink, alleging a floor defect caused her shoulder injury.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment in December 2020; the court granted summary judgment for defendant on March 11, 2021.
- Castleton’s counsel electronically submitted a motion to reconsider on April 12, 2021 but omitted the $75 filing fee; the clerk rejected the submission on April 13 for lack of the fee.
- Later on April 13 counsel resubmitted the motion with the fee and filed a motion for an extension relying on Illinois Supreme Court Rule 183; defendant argued the reconsideration was untimely under 735 ILCS 5/2-1203(a).
- The trial court held it lacked jurisdiction because the postjudgment motion was filed more than 30 days after the final judgment, denied relief, and declined nunc pro tunc correction because there was no clerical error in the judgment.
- The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning the untimely motion did not toll the appeal period and the clerk properly rejected the initial submission for lack of fee.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion to reconsider tolled the 30-day appeal period | Motion was submitted to clerk and served within 30 days (April 12) so should be treated as filed | Motion was not filed within 30 days; only accepted filing (April 13) counts, so untimely | Motion was filed 33 days after judgment; did not toll appeal period; appellate court lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether clerk properly rejected initial e-file for missing fee | Fee omission was a misunderstanding; clerk should have accepted and billed or Rule 183 allows extension | Clerk may require advance payment; rejection meant document was not filed | Clerk properly exercised discretion to reject without fee; acceptance is condition to filing |
| Whether nunc pro tunc relief could cure the late filing | If court granted nunc pro tunc, motion would be timely | No clerical error in the judgment or record to justify nunc pro tunc | Nunc pro tunc unavailable—no clerical mistake in the record; cannot rely on outside evidence |
| Whether Rule 183 or Rule 9(d)(2) could save the filing | Rule 183/Rule 9 relief (good cause) was argued below to deem filing timely | Statutory deadline in 735 ILCS 5/2-1203(a) controls; Rule 183 doesn't extend that deadline | Plaintiff forfeited Rule 183/9 arguments on appeal and, in any event, Rule 183 does not extend the section 2-1203(a) deadline; no good-cause showing under Rule 9(d)(2) in record |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Melchor, 226 Ill. 2d 24 (2007) (nunc pro tunc correction limited to clerical errors shown in the record)
- Ayala v. Goad, 176 Ill. App. 3d 1091 (1988) (a submission is filed only when the clerk accepts it for filing)
- Ganja v. Johnson, 6 Ill. App. 3d 701 (1972) (clerk may refuse to accept a submission unless the fee is paid; acceptance confers jurisdiction)
- People v. Bailey, 2014 IL 115459 (2014) (time limits for postjudgment motions and consequences for court jurisdiction)