Vines v. The Village of Flossmoor
2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 680
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Fourteen-year-old Sellars Vines II fell 20 feet from a ventilation grate outside the Flossmoor Library after it closed, sustaining serious injuries.
- His parents sued the Village of Flossmoor and later added the Flossmoor Library; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to both defendants on August 31, 2016; plaintiffs’ postjudgment motions were denied on November 14, 2016.
- The Vineses’ notice of appeal was due December 14, 2016, but was filed late on December 21, 2016; they did not file an Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303(d) motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal within the 30-day grace period.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction after the Rule 303(d) deadline passed; the appellate court initially (in two orders) denied dismissal and granted plaintiffs leave to amend, but the present panel found those rulings erroneous.
- The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the Vineses missed both the notice-of-appeal deadline and the separate Rule 303(d) deadline to seek leave to file late.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction over untimely notice of appeal filed Dec. 21, 2016 | Vineses urged amendment of notice and equitable relief; pointed to counsel’s inadvertent docketing mistake and reliance on principles like People v. Brown to avoid forfeiture | Defendants argued strict compliance with Rule 303(a) and (d) is jurisdictional and Vineses failed to timely file a Rule 303(d) motion within 30 days after the appeal period | Court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal because plaintiffs failed to file a timely Rule 303(d) motion within the 30-day grace period |
| Whether a Rule 303(d) motion must be filed simultaneously with the notice of appeal | Plaintiffs argued the court should allow amendment and consider equitable exceptions (invoking Brown) | Defendants maintained Rule 303(d)’s requirements and deadline are mandatory and jurisdictional; separate filing after deadline is insufficient | Court reaffirmed Rule 303(d) is mandatory; missing the separate 30-day deadline is fatal to jurisdiction |
| Whether People v. Brown’s equitable relief applies to civil appeals | Plaintiffs relied on Brown to argue substance over form should save the appeal | Defendants contended Brown is a criminal-case precedent and does not apply to civil appeals where no admonition requirement exists | Court held Brown is inapplicable to civil cases and refused to extend criminal-case equitable relief to this civil appeal |
| Whether prior panel’s orders denying dismissal and allowing amendment were proper | Plaintiffs relied on those orders to proceed | Defendants urged those orders were erroneous because jurisdictional defects remained | Court admitted error in prior panel orders and vacated them, holding dismissal required for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Barth, 103 Ill. 2d 536 (addresses appellate court’s independent duty to review jurisdiction)
- Secura Ins. Co. v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 232 Ill. 2d 209 (timely filing of notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional)
- Bank of Herrin v. Peoples Bank of Marion, 105 Ill. 2d 305 (discusses liberal exercise of Rule 303(d) to preserve appeals for honest counsel mistakes when timely filed)
- La Grange Mem’l Hosp. v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 317 Ill. App. 3d 863 (allowing relief where Rule 303(d) motion filed within additional 30 days after inadvertent late filing)
- Gaynor v. Walsh, 219 Ill. App. 3d 996 (discusses requirement that Rule 303(d) motion be accompanied by proposed notice and the finality of deadlines)
- Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 408 Ill. App. 3d 564 (explains standard of review for jurisdictional questions is de novo)
- People v. Brown, 54 Ill. 2d 25 (criminal-case equitable relief for failure to timely appeal; held inapplicable to civil appeals)