Pangea Ventures v. Crosby ( 2020 )

2020 IL App (1st) 191223-UNo. 1-19-1223
Order filed May 22, 2020
SIXTH DIVISION
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as
precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
PANGEA VENTURES, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County.
)
v. ) No. 17 M1 714113
)
CIERRA CROSBY, ) Honorable
) David A. Skryd,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Mikva and Justice Connors concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: Where the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion to reopen
the case filed more than 30 days after entry of the final judgment, we vacate the
order denying the motion and dismiss the motion pursuant to our authority under
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 366(a)(5) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994).
¶2 Defendant Cierra Crosby appeals pro se from the circuit court’s order denying her motion
to “re-open” a case in which the court granted possession of a certain apartment to plaintiff Pangea
Ventures. On appeal, defendant argues that the court erroneously denied her motion because the
No. 1-19-1223
order granting possession of the apartment to plaintiff was not supported by evidence. For the
following reasons, we vacate the circuit court’s order denying defendant’s motion and dismiss the
motion pursuant to our authority under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 366(a)(5) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994).
¶3 There is no report of the trial court’s proceedings in the record on appeal. However, the
following facts can be gleaned from the limited record on appeal, which includes the trial court’s
docket and half-sheets, plaintiff’s complaint, several agreed continuance orders, the order for
possession and records of the eviction, defendant’s motion now at issue, and the circuit court’s
written order thereon.
¶4 On August 25, 2017, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging it was entitled to possession of a
certain apartment on State Street in Calumet City, unpaid rent totaling $1409.08, and costs.
¶5 In September and October 2017, the trial court entered several agreed orders allowing
plaintiff to accept partial payments from defendant without prejudice.
¶6 On November 6, 2017, defendant failed to appear in court and the trial court entered an
order for possession against her. The order stated that plaintiff was entitled to possession of the
apartment and that defendant owed plaintiff $2246.52. Records from the Office of the Sheriff of
Cook County show that eviction occurred on January 18, 2018.
¶7 On May 30, 2019, defendant filed a pro se motion to “re-open” her case. Her motion stated,
“I need my case re-open [sic] for the payments and a place to become stable,” she was “on the
Section 8 waitlist,” and she was “still looking to make payments in probate or divorce court.”
¶8 On June 14, 2019, the circuit court entered a written order denying defendant’s motion.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal that day.
2
No. 1-19-1223
¶9 On appeal, defendant argues that the circuit court erred in denying her motion to reopen
the case because she did not receive “evidence to support the termination of lease and rental
agreement and no refusal of lease renewal has been recovered.”
¶ 10 Generally, a circuit court loses jurisdiction to hear a cause after the expiration of the 30-
day period following the entry of a final judgment. People v. Bailey, 2014 IL 115459, ¶ 8.
Therefore, the appellate court lacks authority to address the merits of a judgment entered by a
circuit court without jurisdiction and is “limited to considering the issue of jurisdiction below.” Id.
¶ 29. When a reviewing court has concluded the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to address the
merits of the defendant’s motion, it must vacate the circuit court’s judgment and dismiss the
defendant’s motion. Id.
¶ 11 In this case, defendant filed her motion to reopen the case more than 18 months after the
trial court’s entry of an order for possession against her. Thus, her posttrial motion was untimely.
See id. ¶ 8. Because defendant’s posttrial motion was untimely, the circuit court did not have
jurisdiction to review it. See id. Accordingly, we must vacate the circuit court’s order denying the
motion and dismiss the motion. See id. ¶ 29; Ill. S. Ct. R. 366(a)(5) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994) (the
reviewing court may “enter any judgment and make any order that ought to have been given or
made”).
¶ 12 For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the circuit court’s order and dismiss defendant’s
motion.
¶ 13 Order vacated; motion dismissed.
3