SYLVIA VINES and SELLARS VINES, Individually and as Parents and Next Friends of Sellars Vines II, a Minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE VILLAGE OF FLOSSMOOR, a Municipal Corporation, and THE FLOSSMOOR LIBRARY, a Unit of Local Government, Defendants-Appellees.
Docket No. 1-16-3339
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division
October 31, 2017
Rehearing denied December 7, 2017
2017 IL App (1st) 163339
Modified opinion filed December 12, 2017
Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 14-L-4383; the Hon. Kathy Flanagan, Judge, presiding.
Judgment: Appeal dismissed.
Counsel on Appeal: Larry R. Rogers, Jr., of Power Rogers & Smith, LLP, of Chicago, for appellants.
Jon Yambert and Rebecca Fozo, of Chilton Yambert Porter, LLP, of Chicago, for appellee Village of Flossmoor.
Loretta M. Griffin, of Chicago, for other appellee.
OPINION
¶ 1 A “deadline” is the date or time before which a task must be completed. When it comes to appellate court jurisdiction, missing a deadline can plunge an otherwise promising appeal into a nightmare. That is what has occurred here. The plaintiffs missed both the deadline for filing their notice of appeal and for filing a late notice of appeal. Defendants caught the oversight and took proper advantage of the appellate rules. We have no choice but to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
¶ 2 Background
¶ 3 Fourteen-year-old Sellars Vines II went to the Flossmoor Library after school to work on his homework. When the library closed at 5 p.m., Sellars and a friend waited outside for a ride home near heavy metal grates placed atop ventilation shafts. Because it was chilly, the boys stood on one of the grates warming themselves with the exhaust air. The grate gave way, and Sellars fell 20 feet onto concrete, fracturing his scapula and three ribs and puncturing his lung. Sellars stayed in the hospital for two weeks, followed by rehabilitation.
¶ 4 Sellars‘s parents sued the Village of Flossmoor (Village) seeking damages for their son‘s injuries. Later they added the Flossmoor Library (Library) as a defendant. The defendants moved for summary judgment, denying all the allegations in the amended complaint. On August 31, 2016, the trial court granted summary judgment to both the Library and the Village. On September 30, the Vineses moved to reconsider, asserting the trial court erred and seeking leave to file a third amended complaint. On November
¶ 5 Notice of appeal was due on December 14, 2016. The Vineses did not file until December 21. No
¶ 6 On January 17, 2017, the Library moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The deadline had passed for filing a late notice of appeal under
¶ 7 Analysis
¶ 8 This court has an independent duty to review our jurisdiction over an appeal and dismiss when it does not exist. Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Barth, 103 Ill. 2d 536, 539 (1984). We are without jurisdiction to review an untimely filed notice of appeal. Tunca v. Painter, 2012 IL App (1st) 093384, ¶ 23. The question of jurisdiction presents a question of law, which we review de novo (In re Marriage of Demaret, 2012 IL App (1st) 111916, ¶ 25), performing the same analysis that a trial judge would perform. Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 408 Ill. App. 3d 564, 578 (2011).
¶ 9 Filing of a timely notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional. Secura Insurance Co. v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 232 Ill. 2d 209, 213 (2009).
¶ 10 Under
¶ 11 The deadline by which the Vineses had to file their motion to amend expired on January 13, 2017. ” ‘If litigation is to have some finality, acts must be accomplished within the time prescribed by law.’ ” Gaynor v. Walsh, 219 Ill. App. 3d 996, 1004 (1991) (quoting People v. Wilk, 124 Ill. 2d 93, 108 (1988)). Instead of filing the required
¶ 12 There is a split in authority as to whether a
¶ 13 Filing the notice of appeal and the motion separately was not fatal in La Grange Memorial Hospital v. St. Paul Insurance Co., 317 Ill. App. 3d 863, 865 (2000). There, the defendant inadvertently filed its notice of appeal one business day late. When it discovered its mistake, a timely
¶ 14 At oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel urged us to extend the holding of People v. Brown, 54 Ill. 2d 25 (1973), to avoid unduly emphasizing “formality” over “substance.” In Brown, the defendant pled guilty to robbery and was sentenced the same day, but the trial court did not advise the defendant about the time requirements for a notice of appeal. The defendant filed a pro se notice of appeal some seven weeks later. Over two years passed. Briefing was completed and oral argument was held. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on its own motion. The supreme court reversed the appellate court‘s dismissal as an abuse of discretion. Id. at 25-27.
¶ 15 Significantly, the holding in Brown has not been extended to civil cases where there is no duty to admonish regarding time limits on the notice of appeal. Local 799, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Henkhaus, 88 Ill. App. 3d 1034 (1980). “Although such an admonition has been held to be essential in a criminal proceeding and is now required by
¶ 16 Here, as in Gaynor, we have reconsidered, as we must, this court‘s rulings on January 31, 2017, and February 15, 2017, denying the defendants’ motions to dismiss the appeal and the February 15, 2017, order granting plaintiffs’ motion to amend. See Gaynor, 219 Ill. App. 3d at 1004 (appellate court reversed prior ruling allowing additional time to file motion for leave to file late notice of appeal where “window of opportunity” to file late notice of appeal had expired). The filing of a
¶ 17 The Vineses’ petition for rehearing argues our ruling on the motion to dismiss and the motion to amend was reached “without the benefit of fully briefing or extensive oral argument on the specific issue which formed the basis of its opinion.” Not so. The first point in the Vineses’ reply to the Library‘s response brief acknowledges that “this court has already been fully briefed on the question of jurisdiction” and proceeds over the course of three pages to deflect the issue. In addition, at oral argument, we extensively questioned the parties on jurisdiction.
¶ 18 We are sensitive to the injuries suffered by Sellars, but we do not have the authority to excuse the filing requirements governing appeals. Fairness, efficiency, and predictability require that there be strict deadlines for our jurisdiction in civil cases.
¶ 19 Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal.
¶ 20 Appeal dismissed.