Quantcast

Fifth District rules post-judgment motion in FOIA case was untimely and hould not have been granted

MADISON - ST. CLAIR RECORD

Sunday, November 24, 2024

Fifth District rules post-judgment motion in FOIA case was untimely and hould not have been granted

State Court
General court 01

MOUNT VERNON -- A lower court did not have jurisdiction 30 days after it entered into a final judgment in a case concerning a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

Justice Melissa Chapman delivered the Sept. 10 decisioni reversing St. Clair County Circuit Judge Stephen McGlynn. Justices James R. Moore and John R. Barberis Jr. concurred. 

According to background in the ruling, Larry Price filed a FOIA request with the city of Belleville, looking for documents related to the development of the Hofbräuhaus restaurant. He argued that he was convinced the city shelled out nearly $3 million in taxpayer dollars to provide city sewer access and/or that there was a tax increment financing district established to help the project.


Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court Melissa A. Chapman | law.siu.edu

Price sought declaratory judgment and asked for injunctive relief after the city did not respond to his requests. The city responded with a motion to dismiss, and McGlynn granted the motion. However more than 30 days after it was tossed, Price’s attorney was told about the dismissal and filed a motion to extend the time to file a post-judgment motion and a motion to vacate or reconsider the order of dismissal. 

Although McGlynn granted the motion to extend, he denied the motion for post-judgment relief.

But the appellate court found that the lower court no longer had jurisdiction that long after the final judgment was entered.

“We vacate both orders entered by the trial court and dismiss the two motions Price filed more than 30 days after the judgment was entered because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider Price’s untimely motions," the appellate court ruled. "Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of Prince’s appeal.”

The appellate court saw no need to address Price’s challenges as it found that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to rule on his post-judgment motions. It noted Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303(a)(1) calls for a notice of appeal to be filed within 30 days of the judgment. Although the statute does permit a post-judgment motion after the 30 days is up, the court can greenlight a request within the 30 days for any extensions. But this only works if the first pleading, including a motion to extend the 30-day timeframe, is actually filed within the 30 days. For Price, that was not the case.

McGlynn entered final order Aug, 2, 2017, and Price did not ask for a motion to extend until Nov. 15, 2017. “By that date, the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to consider Price’s motion,” the appeals court ruled.

It added that the Illinois Supreme Court Rule 183 that permits trial courts to extend the time for filing a pleading after the timeframe expires does not apply to this case either. Instead the appellate court noted, “That only applies to the time limits for pleadings and to time limits that have been set by the supreme court rules.”

More News