ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Appellate Law Blogs -> Illinois Appellate Lawyer Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Appellate Law

: Illinois Appellate Lawyer Blog

Appeal Of Post-Judgment Motion Not Saved By Rule 303

By Steven R. Merican

ADVERTISEMENTS

Bridgette Glickman, owner of a condominium unit, fell on ice in a stairway at the condo building. She sustained multiple fractures to her ankle. Among others, she sued the condominium association for negligent maintenance of the stairway.

The trial court dismissed Glickman?s complaint against the association because the accident happened before the association elected its first board of managers. The case proceeded against the other defendants ? the developer and the designer of the building. Glickman appealed the dismissal of the association within the mandated 30-day deadline. About four months later, she asked the trial court for permission to file an amended complaint against the association.

The trial court denied Glickman?s request to amend, so she made the denial part of her appeal. The First District Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the ruling that Glickman?s request came too late for the trial court to decide. The filing of Glickman?s notice of appeal did not relieve the trial court of jurisdiction. But her failure to file the request to amend within 30 days did. Here?s what the appellate court stated:

As a general rule, the trial court is divested of jurisdiction over a cause upon the filing of a notice of appeal ? However, under the recently amended version of Supreme Court Rule 303(a)(2) ? the trial court retains jurisdiction over a timely filed postjudgment motion ? Because Glickman's motion involved the party that was dismissed from the lawsuit and since it was not filed within the 30 days allowed under Rule 304(a) ? it was not timely filed and the trial court no longer had jurisdiction over the dismissed party. Therefore, the trial court's denial of Glickman's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is affirmed.

Don?t fret, though, if your sympathy is with Ms. Glickman. The dismissal of Glickman?s complaint against the association was reversed. Read the whole case, Glickman v. Teglia, No. 1-08-0392 (2/19/09), by clicking here.

Full post as published by Illinois Appellate Lawyer Blog on May 02, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0023 secs (from cache 10/31/26 09:36:39)