VC&M, LTD v. Andrews, 991 N.E.2d 323

VC&M sued Cindy and Robert Andrews for real-estate commission; the trial court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice under section 2-615.
VC&M e-filed a motion to reconsider within 30 days (permitted by the pilot e-filing program rules in the 18th Judicial Circuit), later filing a paper copy; the trial court heard and denied the motion on the merits.
VC&M then e-filed a notice of appeal within 30 days of the denial; defendants moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on local-rule violations.
The appellate court dismissed the appeal, concluding (1) the initial e-filed motion to reconsider was a nullity because the case was not properly designated for e-filing, so it did not toll the appeal period, and (2) the notice of appeal was improperly e-filed in violation of the local rule.
The Illinois Supreme Court granted review of two certified questions about (a) whether an e-filed postjudgment motion filed in violation of a local rule tolled the Rule 303 appeal period, and (b) whether the local rule barred e-filing a notice of appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an e-filed postjudgment motion submitted in violation of local rule 5.03(b) tolls the 30-day appeal period under Supreme Court Rule 303	VC&M: The clerk’s acceptance of the e-filed motion should be treated as a valid filing that tolled the appeal period	Andrews: The e-filed motion was a nullity because the case was never designated for e-filing; only a timely paper filing would toll Rule 303	Held: The e-filed motion, though filed in violation of the local rule, was not a nullity that deprived the trial court of jurisdiction; it tolled the appeal period because defendants were not prejudiced and the court considered the motion on the merits
Whether local rule 5.03(d) prohibits e-filing a notice of appeal	VC&M: A notice of appeal filed with the clerk (even electronically) should be acceptable; clerk acceptance should carry weight	Andrews: Rule 5.03(d) requires appellate and postjudgment documents to be filed conventionally (paper), so e-filing a notice of appeal was prohibited	Held: Rule 5.03(d) plainly prohibited e-filing notices of appeal at that time; however, the e-filed notice nonetheless conferred jurisdiction because the clerk was required to maintain a parallel paper record and defendants were not prejudiced

Ragan v. Columbia Mut. Ins. Co., 183 Ill. 2d 342 (1998) (failure to follow procedural rule to obtain leave to amend did not create a jurisdictional nullity)
Cedzidlo v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 404 Ill. App. 3d 578 (2010) (procedural failure to obtain leave did not deprive trial court of jurisdiction; court may grant leave post hoc)
Burtell v. First Charter Serv. Corp., 76 Ill. 2d 427 (1979) (substance-over-form: defective notice of appeal as to form does not necessarily deprive appellate court of jurisdiction)
In re Detention of Powell, 217 Ill. 2d 123 (2005) (appellate courts have discretion to sanction rule violations)