*1 (No. 58994. COMPANY, Appellee, MIDLAND
ARCHER DANIELS BARTH, Appellant. v. EDWARD Opinion
SIMON, J., dissenting. Habermann, of H. Huber and Richard O.
George Vandalia, for appellant. Carr,
Jeanne Sathre and Michael of Ko- Thompson, Brennan, Louis, rein, Kunin, Schlichter & of East St. appellee. delivered the opinion
JUSTICE UNDERWOOD court: 10, 1980, March Archer Daniels Midland
On plaintiff, a in the circuit court of Madi- Company, complaint Barth, son alleging defendant, Edward County breached a contract to deliver various plaintiff quanti- A ties of motion for soybeans. was summary judgment 11, 1982, on and an in the August entry filed by plaintiff minute record shows that the motion was on granted states: 30. The minute-record further August entry submitted).” September order to be On “(Formal 30 or- August defendant filed a motion to reconsider how- judgment, order granting summary der. formal The mo- until ever, not and filed 30, and December was denied on tion to reconsider on January filed his notice of appeal defendant on sua sponte court dismissed appeal The appellate filed. was not timely that the notice of ground for leave to appeal. petition We allowed defendant’s a jurisdiction party To vest after of entry within 30 days must file a notice from, after en days or within appealed motion. of a timely post-trial of an order try disposing here was the notice of 303(a).) Ill. 2d R. Since (87 denied, to reconsider was the motion filed 29 after days was en after judgment than two months albeit more the motion us is whether tered, before question the time filed, extending thereby was timely reconsider of appeal. file his notice defendant could within which falls within the a judgment A motion reconsider must be filed motions which category post-judgment *3 is entered. after the challenged judgment within 30 days 1203; v. 1983, 110, ch. Sears par. Rev. Stat. (Ill. 2— 253, The time and method 258.) 85 Ill. 2d (1981), Sears 272, Rule our of are controlled by entering judgment which provides: judge the announcing final judgment
“If at the time of judgment to of a form of written the submission requires him, to that shall make a notation the clerk signed' by be when the only final judgment the becomes effect and judg written If no such is filed. signed judgment filed, shall forthwith judge the or clerk ment is to be of judgment enter the judgment of and make a notation the time is entered at judgment and the promptly, record 272.) Ill. 2d R. (87 it of record.” is entered here the course, judgment that is, dispute It beyond was order signed judgment until the was not entered attacked then it could not be 6. Until filed on October 539 motion, or re from, Marriage enforced. appealed (In Green v. (1980), 538, 542; Roberts 84 Ill. 3d Green App. 396, 403; 21 Ill. v. (1974), App. Masonry 3d Davidson J. Sons, 524, L. 2 3d 526- (1971), Wroan & Inc. Ill. App. It follows that 20 motion to recon 27.) September was v. (1978), sider Berkheimer untimely (Berkheimer Ill. 19, 3d and an App. 20-21), untimely post-judgment does a filing motion not extend time for notice of ap Ill. (1981), 2d R. Sears v. 85 Ill. 2d peal (87 303(a); Sears 253, 28, 1983, 259). notice of Consequently, January 6, filed more than 30 after days 1982, entered, was did not vest court with and the jurisdiction, dis properly missed.
Defendant’s that it was error for the argument appel late court to dismiss the on its own motion mis states the law. correct rule is that reviewing a has a to duty consider its jurisdiction and dismiss the if it determines that is jurisdiction Ber wanting. 263, ber v. Hass 30 Ill. 2d (1964), 266; v. Guttman Schil 323, ler (1961), 325; Ill. 2d Uptown National Bank v. (1959), 547, 17 Ill. 2d Puris.
isNor this an case application appropriate revestment People doctrine. concluded in v. Kaeding We 237, 98 Ill. 2d an (1983), motion untimely post-trial the trial revested since jurisdiction neither party objected further in that court proceedings and sought both to set aside Unlike judgment. Kaeding, however, we are here factual with a situation presented akin to that (1981), involved in Sears v. Sears Ill. 2d 260, where we declined to the re- expressly apply vestment “the doctrine because did not ig participants case, nore the start judgment and retry thereby *4 their implying by conduct their to consent the having set aside. the judgment On the contrary, hearing was about whether the aside; should judgment be set and [ap- it not. in the Nothing proceeding insisted should
pellee] in Nothing with the [appel- was inconsistent judgment. her or judgment conduct waived voluntarily lee’s] it. old was never her to assert The estopped judgment Sears, touched, As in nei- and no new one was entered.” the nor the conduct ther here post-judgment proceedings with the court’s judg- of the inconsistent parties was and ment. did not or the ignore judgment Plaintiff waive its im- case, nothing the and in conduct attempt retry to the set having judgment hint plied any willingness jurisdic- was not revested with aside. The circuit court on the tion, and the fact the court ruled ultimately post- is inconsequential. motion judgment af- The accordingly is judgment firmed.
Judgment affirmed. SIMON, dissenting: JUSTICE that a motion to reconsider a holding majority’s filing to the of a formal writ- judgment prior submitted the time for ten order is and does not extend untimely over a notice of celebrates form substance. filing too and has claimed This occurs type pitfall frequently victims. many on Septem- filed his motion to reconsider
Defendant summary after the plaintiff’s ber twenty-one days In allowing summary motion was allowed. a formal order stated that judgment, judge circuit it on later, was, and would be and of the defendant’s filing This between 16-day gap pro order, confirming motion and the merely forma his the trial announced judge events of 30 when August fatal as the blow decision, majority is treated appeal. defendant’s I would allow rigid this approach, Instead of taking still the motion reconsider because *5 court files at the in the circuit alive and well and reposing A is to appeal time the order was filed. “notice formal The notice of serves pur be construed. liberally court in the trial pose informing prevailing party a higher seeks a review litigant that the unsuccessful Corp. (1979), court.” First Charter Service (Burtell v. to reconsider was 427, Ill. 2d Even if the motion 433). of the written order technically premature, entry regard life into it. At that I would point breathed new refiled, constructively motion to reconsider as been having vested the ap and the actions that then followed properly jurisdiction. pellate
Even more is the fact that both distressing parties until the appellate treated the as properly brought court, on the ground sua dismissed sponte, I the notice not filed. do not blame Although timely its fail jurisdiction, questioning reconsideration as ure of this court to treat the motion for de after the of the written order properly pending entry an a result I as un regard the defendant of prives similar circum fair. As I out under somewhat pointed 95 Ill. 2d stances v. Industrial Com. (see (1983), Garcia I choose substance J., would (Simon, dissenting)), of form. instead
(No. 59019. ILLINOIS, THE OF Appel- THE OF STATE PEOPLE FLOYD, G. lant, Appellee. v. TOMMY Opinion