2018 IL App (2d) 170368
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- On December 2, 2016 the trial court granted summary judgment for the County in a motorcycle-crash roadway-defect suit by Robert Peraino. A postjudgment motion to reconsider was due within 30 days (Jan 3, 2017).
- Peraino attempted to e-file a motion to reconsider shortly before midnight on Jan 3, 2017, but the document was not accepted by the e-filing system and was file-stamped at 12:03 a.m. on Jan 4, 2017.
- On Jan 5, 2017 Peraino filed a motion for leave to have the motion to reconsider treated as filed on Jan 3 (nunc pro tunc), citing local e-filing rule 22.01(N), the Supreme Court Electronic Filing Standards, and Rule 183; he attached a paralegal’s affidavit describing the failed upload attempt.
- The County opposed; the trial court denied Peraino’s nunc pro tunc request, concluding the failure was user error (not a system technical failure) and that the court lacked a basis under the local rule or Rule 183 to backdate the filing.
- The appellate court held that, because no timely posttrial motion was filed within 30 days, the trial court lost jurisdiction 30 days after the judgment; its subsequent order denying Peraino’s backdating motion was void and was vacated, and the motion was dismissed. The appellate court also concluded it lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits of the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could treat the Jan 4 e-file as timely under local e-filing rule/Standards | Peraino argued the filing should be deemed effective as of the attempted Jan 3 transmission under local rule 22.01(N) and the Supreme Court Filing Standards (failure-of-process backdating) | County contended the filing was untimely and based on user error, not a system technical failure, so no relief was warranted | Court held the postjudgment 30-day period had elapsed before relief was sought, depriving the trial court of jurisdiction to grant backdating; order vacated and motion dismissed |
| Whether Rule 183 / Filing Standards permit extension/backdating after the 30-day jurisdictional period | Peraino relied on Rule 183 and filing standards that generally allow extensions/backdating for e-filing failures | County argued those provisions cannot override the jurisdictional 30-day limit in §2-1203 and Rule 303 | Court held specific jurisdictional deadlines control; Rule 183/Standards cannot revive jurisdiction after the 30 days elapsed |
| Whether nunc pro tunc relief could cure the untimely filing | Peraino characterized the request as nunc pro tunc to correct the record to the Jan 3 date | County opposed; no clerical error in the court’s record existed—only extrinsic evidence of attempted filing | Court held nunc pro tunc is limited to correcting clerical omissions in the record and cannot be used to retroactively create jurisdiction based on outside affidavits; not available here |
| Whether the revestment doctrine restored jurisdiction despite lapse | Peraino implicitly relied on the absence of timely objection and activity after judgment | County actively opposed the Jan 5 motion | Court held revestment does not apply when the opposing party objects; jurisdiction was not revested |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bailey, 2014 IL 115459 (holds a trial court loses jurisdiction after the statutory period and subsequent orders are void)
- People v. Salem, 2016 IL 118693 (revestment doctrine requires both parties’ conduct to support revesting; an objection defeats revestment)
- People v. Melchor, 226 Ill. 2d 24 (nunc pro tunc relief is limited to correcting clerical errors reflected in the court record)
- Secura Ins. Co. v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 232 Ill. 2d 209 (timeliness of appeal filings is jurisdictional and mandatory)
- In re Marriage of Adler, 271 Ill. App. 3d 469 (principle that specific statutory deadlines control over general rules)