2022 IL App (2d) 220089-U
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background
- Plaintiff obtained a judgment against Wiczer & Associates and later served a third-party citation on Bernard Wiczer; after post-citation proceedings the trial court entered a $15,337 judgment against Wiczer on July 12, 2019 and dismissed the citation.
- Respondent (Bernard Wiczer) filed a motion to reconsider and vacate the July 12 judgment via the court’s e‑filing system; counsel asserts the motion was submitted on August 9, 2019 (within the 30‑day window) but the clerk rejected it for multiple defects and finally accepted it on August 20, 2019.
- The trial court (Nov. 22, 2019) found the motion timely despite the clerk’s later acceptance and vacated the July 12 judgment; the court then continued the citation proceeding several times.
- An earlier appeal from the Nov. 22 order was dismissed for lack of finality because the vacatur returned the citation proceeding to a pre‑judgment status.
- After that dismissal, plaintiff sought to resume the citation; the trial court denied that motion, and plaintiff timely appealed the denial and the vacatur ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion to reconsider was timely filed for purposes of the 30‑day postjudgment deadline | Motion was not filed until clerk accepted it after the 30‑day period, so the court lost jurisdiction | Motion was timely because counsel submitted it to the e‑filing system before the deadline | Motion was untimely: submission ≠ filing; clerk acceptance occurred after 30 days, so court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether respondent showed "good cause" under Ill. S. Ct. R. 9(d)(2) to excuse late filing after e‑file rejections | No good cause; late filing cannot be excused where counsel failed to follow e‑filing requirements | Good cause because the rejected and subsequently accepted filings were substantively the same and delays were clerical/systemic | No good cause: counsel’s multiple e‑filing defects (multiple documents in one transaction, no appearance, wrong fee) were not minor and e‑filing had been established long enough to expect compliance |
| Whether the trial court properly vacated the July 12, 2019 judgment and whether plaintiff could resume the citation proceeding | Vacatur was void because the court lacked jurisdiction; the July 12 judgment therefore stands and the citation need not be resumed | Court acted within discretion in granting reconsideration and vacating judgment | Court lacked jurisdiction to vacate; appellate court reversed the trial court’s vacatur and did not reach merits of the motion or the resume issue |
Key Cases Cited
- R.W. Dunteman Co. v. C/G Enterprises, Inc., 181 Ill. 2d 153 (1998) (final judgment disposes of parties’ rights and triggers postjudgment deadlines)
- In re Marriage of Colangelo and Sebala, 355 Ill. App. 3d 383 (2005) (treating certain post‑citation judgments as final)
- In re Marriage of Devick, 335 Ill. App. 3d 734 (2002) (same; finality for postjudgment jurisdictional rules)
- Ayala v. Goad, 176 Ill. App. 3d 1091 (1988) (a submission is considered filed only once the clerk reviews and accepts it)
- Ganja v. Johnson, 6 Ill. App. 3d 701 (1972) (clerk’s acceptance for filing is the event that vests the court with jurisdiction)