Bertell v. Rockford Memorial Hosp.

• Decision Date: 22 July 2009
• Docket Number: No. 2-08-0652.,2-08-0652.
• Citation: 913 N.E.2d 123
• Parties: James J. BERTELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROCKFORD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL and Earl Tamar, as Chief of Operations, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

913 N.E.2d 123

James J. BERTELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROCKFORD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL and Earl Tamar, as Chief of Operations, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 2-08-0652.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

July 22, 2009.

Constance Augsburger, Buzard & Augsburger, Mt. Morris, for James J. Bertell.

Joseph T. Monahan and Linda A. Bryceland, Monahan & Cohen, Chicago, for Rockford Memorial Hospital and Earl Tamar.

Justice O'MALLEY delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, James J. Bertell, sued defendants, Rockford Memorial Hospital (RMH) and its chief of operations, Earl Tamar, alleging that they subjected him to involuntary commitment without filing a timely petition in the trial court. The trial court dismissed the complaint (see 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2006)), holding that the petition was timely. We affirm.

Plaintiff's complaint alleged as follows. On Sunday, February 12, 2006, at 2 p.m., he was involuntarily committed to RMH, under section 3-600 of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (Code) (405 ILCS 5/3-600 (West 2006)). That day, a registered nurse signed a commitment petition and reviewed it with plaintiff. On Tuesday, February 14, 2006, defendants filed the petition in the trial court. On February 15, 2006, plaintiff was released from RMH. The petition and the required supporting documents were not timely filed under section 3-611 of the Code, which, as pertinent here, reads:

"Within 24 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, after the respondent's admission under this Article, the facility director of the facility shall file 2 copies of the petition, the first certificate, and proof of service of the petition and statement of rights upon the respondent with the court in the county in which the facility is located." 405 ILCS 5/3-611 (West 2006).

Plaintiff contended that, because the petition was filed more than 24 hours after he was admitted to RMH, he had been unlawfully detained there. He sought recovery under theories of negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and false imprisonment.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the petition was timely under section 3-611. According to defendants, Monday, February 13, 2006, was a "holiday" (405 ILCS 5/3-611 (West 2006)) and therefore (along with Sunday, February 12, 2006) was excluded from the calculation of the 24-hour period. Thus, they maintained, the petition had been filed timely on Tuesday, February 14, 2006, the first postcommitment day that was neither a Sunday nor a holiday. Defendants relied in part on section 60 of the State Commemorative Dates Act (Act) (5 ILCS 490/60 (West 2006)), which reads:

"Lincoln's Birthday. The twelfth day of February of each year shall be a legal holiday to be known as Lincoln's Birthday to be observed as a day on which to hold appropriate exercises in commemoration of our illustrious President. When February twelfth shall fall on a Sunday, the following Monday shall be held and considered the holiday."

Defendants also invoked section 1.11 of the Statute on Statutes (5 ILCS 70/1.11 (West 2006)), which, as pertinent here, reads:

"The time within which any act provided by law is to be done shall be computed by excluding the first day and including the last, unless the last day is Saturday or Sunday or is a holiday as defined or fixed in any statute now or hereafter in force in this State, and then it shall also be excluded."

Defendants reasoned that section 1.11 of the Statute on Statutes showed that Lincoln's Birthday 2006 was "a holiday as defined or fixed" by section 60 of the Act. 5 ILCS 70/1.11 (West 2006).

The trial court heard arguments on the motion, but there is no transcript or bystander's report of the hearing. On March 26, 2008, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On April 25, 2008, plaintiff moved to reconsider. He argued that, in the context of this case, February 13, 2006, should not be considered a "holiday." His motion attached an order, dated August 1, 2005, by which the chief judge of the court designated certain dates as "Judicial Legal Holidays" on which the circuit court of the Seventeenth Judicial District "shall adjourn and shall be closed." February 13, 2006, was not on the list.¹ Plaintiff reasoned that, because the court was open that day, it would be absurd to treat it as a holiday that extended the time in which to file documents there. Defendants responded that the Act unambiguously made Lincoln's Birthday a legal holiday and that, under section 3-611 of the Code and the Statute on Statutes, the 24-hour period did not start until February 14, 2006.

At a hearing, which was transcribed, defendants contended that plaintiff's motion was improper because it merely reiterated what plaintiff had argued in opposing defendants' motion to dismiss. The trial judge conceded that he had "heard all these arguments before," but he found it helpful to hear them again with a court reporter present so that this court could have a record of the arguments. After the court denied the motion to reconsider, plaintiff timely appealed.

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in ruling that Lincoln's Birthday 2006 was a "holiday" that tolled the 24-hour period for filing the involuntary-commitment petition. He reasons that, in actuality, Monday, February 13, 2006, was no more a "holiday" than any other day on which the circuit court was open and that to ignore this reality would slight the liberty interests of those who have been involuntarily committed. See generally In re Stone, 249 Ill.App.3d 861, 864-65, 189 Ill. Dec. 296, 619 N.E.2d 1345 (1993) (Code must be construed strictly in favor of those subject to involuntary commitment).

Defendants respond first that, because plaintiff's motion to reconsider was "invalid and frivolous," we should hold that it did not toll the time for plaintiff to appeal, making his appeal untimely and requiring us to dismiss it. See Official Reports Advance Sheet No. 8 (April 11, 2007), R. 303(a)(1), eff. May 1, 2007; 735 ILCS 5/20-1203(b) (West 2008). According to defendants, plaintiff's motion raised no new arguments but was filed solely so that he could obtain a written record, which he failed to do at the hearing on the motion to dismiss. Asserting that this tactic caused needless delay and expense, defendants ask us to regard the motion to reconsider as a nullity and thus to dismiss the appeal as untimely. See 155 Ill.2d R. 301; People v. Anderson, 375 Ill.App.3d 121, 131, 313 Ill.Dec. 598, 872 N.E.2d 581 (2007) (timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional). We disagree.

Defendants concede that they "have found no authority that is on point." We too have found no authority that addresses defendants' specific argument, but we believe that well-settled principles require us to hear this appeal. At issue is the interpretation of Supreme Court Rule 303(a)(1) (Official Reports Advance Sheet No. 8 (April 11, 2007), R. 303(a)(1), eff. May 1, 2007) and section 2-1203(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1203(a) (West 2008)). In construing either a supreme court rule or a statute, our paramount objective is to effectuate the intent of those who enacted it. Vicencio v. Lincoln-Way Builders, Inc., 204 Ill.2d 295, 301, 273 Ill.Dec. 390, 789 N.E.2d 290 (2003); Longstreet v. Cottrell, Inc., 374 Ill.App.3d 549, 552, 312 Ill.Dec. 672, 871 N.E.2d 72 (2007). We look first to the language of the rule or statute and, if possible, give terms their plain meaning. Vicencio, 204 Ill.2d at 301, 273 Ill.Dec. 390, 789 N.E.2d 290.

As pertinent here, Rule 303(a)(1) reads, "[t]he notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the circuit court within 30 days after the entry of the final judgment appealed from, or, if a timely posttrial motion directed against the judgment is filed, * * * within 30 days after the entry of the order disposing of the last pending postjudgment motion directed against that judgment or order." Official Reports Advance Sheet No. 8 (April 11, 2007), R. 303(a)(1), eff. May 1, 2007. As pertinent here, section 2-1203(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure allows a party in a nonjury case to file, within 30 days after the entry of the judgment, "a motion for a rehearing, or a retrial, or modification of the judgment or to vacate the judgment or for other relief." 735 ILCS 5/2-1203(a) (West 2008).

Plaintiff complied with the rule and the statute. He filed his notice of appeal within 30 days after the entry of the order denying his motion to reconsider. He filed the motion, which was directed and sought relief against the judgment dismissing his complaint, within 30 days after the entry of the judgment. Therefore, given the plain language of Rule 303(a)(1) and section 2-1203(a), we conclude that we have jurisdiction over plaintiff's appeal.

Defendants' request that we ignore plaintiff's postjudgment motion because it was frivolous or brought for an improper purpose finds no support in the rule or the statute. Defendants ask us to create an exception to section 2-1203(a)'s definition of a postjudgment motion or perhaps to Rule 303(a)(1)'s language extending the time in which to file a notice of appeal. We may not read in such exceptions. Kevin's Towing, Inc. v. Thomas, 351 Ill. App.3d 540, 544, 286 Ill.Dec. 777, 814 N.E.2d 1003 (2004). Nothing makes our jurisdiction depend on the soundness of a postjudgment motion or the motivation for its filing.

We turn to the merits of plaintiff's appeal. His complaint was dismissed under section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows the involuntary dismissal of a claim that is barred by "affirmative matter avoiding the legal effect of or defeating the claim." 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2006).² Our review is de novo, and we ask whether the existence of a genuine issue of material fact should have precluded dismissal or, absent such a factual issue, whether dismissal was proper as a matter of law....