History
  • No items yet
midpage
2013 IL App (1st) 122523
Ill. App. Ct.
2014
Read the full case

Background

  • Won contracted to buy a condominium; dispute arose over closing, earnest money ($63,550) and $975 in upgrade fees. Plaintiff won summary judgment on Jan. 19, 2012, awarding return of earnest money, upgrade fee and interest.
  • Defendant filed a postjudgment motion to reconsider on Feb. 16, 2012. The court issued a Feb. 29 briefing schedule requiring the defendant to provide documents and appear at a clerk’s status call on April 5, 2012.
  • Defendant failed to appear at the April 5 clerk status call; the court entered an order striking the postjudgment motion “with prejudice” on April 5, 2012.
  • Defendant filed a late reply (Apr. 6) and filed a May 4 motion to set a hearing under Ill. S. Ct. R. 184; the court later set and heard the motion and denied reconsideration on July 26, 2012.
  • Defendant filed a notice of appeal on Aug. 24, 2012. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because defendant did not timely move to vacate the April 5 strike order and the appeal was not filed within 30 days of the dispositive April 5 order.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether appellate court has jurisdiction over defendant’s appeal April 5 strike order disposed of the postjudgment motion; defendant had to move to vacate that order within 30 days or appeal within 30 days of April 5 The April 5 order was a scheduling/administrative strike (not a final disposal); defendant’s May 4 Rule 184 motion effectively reinstated the postjudgment motion and tolled appeal time Held: No jurisdiction. April 5 order struck the postjudgment motion with prejudice and defendant did not timely move to vacate; notice of appeal was untimely.
Whether the May 4 motion reinstated the struck postjudgment motion May 4 motion had no effect because the postjudgment motion was not pending (it had been struck) May 4 motion to set a hearing was substantively equivalent to a motion to vacate and should reinstate the motion Held: May 4 motion did not reinstate the motion; it never asked to vacate the strike and defendant was unaware of the strike within the necessary period.
Whether a strike entered after a clerk status call is equivalent to a strike after a hearing for jurisdictional purposes Strike with prejudice is dispositive and starts the 30‑day appeal clock Strike after a clerk status call was merely administrative and not dispositive Held: The unambiguous April 5 order (struck "with prejudice") disposed of the motion for Rule 303 purposes; the court lacked jurisdiction after 30 days.
Whether courts should allow reinstatement of stricken postjudgment motions beyond 30 days Permitting untimely reinstatements would allow successive postjudgment motions and undermine finality Reinstatement may be appropriate when strike was administrative or ambiguous Held: Finality controls; courts should not permit untimely resurrection of stricken postjudgment motions—defendant’s attempt would improperly extend time to attack a final judgment.

Key Cases Cited

  • Yazzin v. Meadox Surgimed, Inc., 224 Ill. App. 3d 288 (1991) (order striking a posttrial motion meant the motion was no longer pending and could not be refiled)
  • Bell v. Hill, 271 Ill. App. 3d 224 (1995) (strict compliance with Supreme Court rules on appeal timing is mandatory; untimely appeals must be dismissed)
  • Workman v. St. Therese Medical Center, 266 Ill. App. 3d 286 (1994) (trial court may vacate a strike order if motion to vacate is timely filed within 30 days)
  • B-G Associates, Inc. v. Giron, 194 Ill. App. 3d 52 (1990) (order striking a postjudgment motion with prejudice made prior judgment final)
  • Sears v. Sears, 85 Ill. 2d 253 (1981) (policy favoring finality: loser must appeal or give up)
  • Chand v. Schlimme, 138 Ill. 2d 469 (1990) (postjudgment motions promote accuracy and reduce unnecessary appeals)
  • Belluomini v. Lancome, 207 Ill. App. 3d 583 (1990) (context matters in construing strike orders; some strikes do not dispose of motions)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Won v. Grant Park 2, L.L.C.
Court Name: Appellate Court of Illinois
Date Published: Feb 3, 2014
Citations: 2013 IL App (1st) 122523; 2 N.E.3d 595; 377 Ill. Dec. 679; 1-12-2523
Docket Number: 1-12-2523
Court Abbreviation: Ill. App. Ct.
Log In