2017 IL App (1st) 163339
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Fourteen-year-old Sellars Vines II was injured when a metal grate at the Flossmoor Library collapsed; his parents sued the Village of Flossmoor and later added the Flossmoor Library.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants on August 31, 2016; the trial court denied motions to reconsider and to file a third amended complaint on November 14, 2016.
- The Vineses’ deadline to file a notice of appeal ran on December 14, 2016; they filed a notice of appeal on December 21, 2016 and did not file a Rule 303(d) motion for leave to file a late notice within the 30-day grace period.
- The Library moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on January 17, 2017; the Vineses filed a “Motion to Amend” the December 21 notice on January 20 requesting leave to file a late notice, but that motion came after the Rule 303(d) window had closed (deadline January 13, 2017).
- Initially, a panel denied the Library’s motion to dismiss and granted the Vineses’ motion to amend; on rehearing this court reconsidered, held it lacked jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether untimely notice of appeal can be cured after the 30‑day Rule 303(d) grace period | Vines: the December 21 notice should stand or be amended to request leave; counsel’s docketing mistake is an excusable error | Defs: no Rule 303(d) motion was filed within 30 days, so appellate court lacks jurisdiction | Held: must file Rule 303(d) within 30 days; filing after the window expired cannot confer jurisdiction; appeal dismissed |
| Whether separate filing (notice then motion) satisfies Rule 303(d)’s “accompanied by the proposed notice” language | Vines: late amendment/motion should be permitted; prior panel allowed amendment | Defs: Rule 303(d) requires the motion within the 30‑day period; separate or late filings are insufficient | Held: motion filed after the 30‑day period is untimely; separate filings do not cure missed deadline once period expired |
| Whether People v. Brown (criminal-case relief from formal defects) applies to civil appeals | Vines: Brown’s emphasis on substance over form should be extended to civil appeals | Defs: Brown is a criminal protection for fundamental rights; no analogous duty to admonish in civil cases | Held: Brown is inapplicable to civil appeals; no extension to civil matters |
| Whether this court may revisit its earlier orders allowing amendment | Vines: prior rulings and briefing justify allowing amendment | Defs: jurisdictional requirements and finality mandate dismissal | Held: Court independently reviews jurisdiction, reversed earlier allowance, and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Barth, 103 Ill. 2d 536 (appellate court must review its jurisdiction)
- Secura Insurance Co. v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 232 Ill. 2d 209 (timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
- La Grange Memorial Hospital v. St. Paul Insurance Co., 317 Ill. App. 3d 863 (Rule 303(d) motion filed within additional 30 days may be granted for honest counsel mistake)
- Bank of Herrin v. Peoples Bank of Marion, 105 Ill. 2d 305 (Rule 303(d) relief should be liberally exercised when motion filed within 30 days)
- People v. Brown, 54 Ill. 2d 25 (criminal-case relief for failure to timely perfect appeal; not extended to civil cases)
- Gaynor v. Walsh, 219 Ill. App. 3d 996 (appellate court reversed prior allowance where Rule 303(d) window had expired)