at least the cork counsel and ladies and gentlemen my name's john harlan i represent the plaintiff apollon for this case comes before the court by virtue of an appeal taken by plaintiff up alot of an opinion and order entered on september twenty first twenty twenty ten by the trial court that order was entered during supplemental proceedings in this case and reduce the final judgment in this case from one hundred twenty eight thousand one hundred one dollars and twenty cents the fifty thousand dollars that order was entered more than twenty eight months after entry the judgment the basis for the entry of that order was plaintiff's failure to attach an affidavit of damages to his complaint pursuant to rule supreme court will two through to the core base its order on a ro of supreme court rule two twenty two in the fourth district the public opinion of brady versus march for the following reasons this court should reverse the trap court's order and reinstate the original judgment of one hundred twenty eight thousand one hundred one twenty spaces pretty simple and straightforward the issues are this rule to twenty to apply to this particular case two does no affirmative i'm sorry does no affidavit of damages pursuant to rule two twenty two requires a trial court to reduce the judgment to fifty thousand dollars three is a judgment void and four was the if the judgment is on what was the motion of vacate timely the facts are pretty straightforward his original complaint in three counts on march twenty fourth two thousand and six a complaint cite damages for personal injuries inflicted by the defendant connally was personally served on july sixth of two thousand  correct are why don't we talk about their very well i think all you need to do is look at the plain language is a little too true to offer both the title of the rule and the very first sentence it's clear that applies to certain cases but not all  i believe what the trial court held sensually and what the defendant argues is that it applies to cases across the board you must pass a rule skinner an affidavit stating whether you're asking for damages in excess of or less than fifty thousand  they says this rule applies to all cases subject to mandatory arbitration civil action seeking money damages not in excess of fifty thousand dollars exclusive it interest in cost and to cases for the collection of taxes not in excess of fifty  in excess of the damages sought so i think that's what the rules and fairly well designed to do in the cases it applies to which are the cases that it sets forth in a case as an act and asking for damages in less than a mile of fifty thousand dollars it limits discovery and says if you do these things automatically you make certain disclosures you do certain things you are limited to certain iraq a tourist and it tries to put a head put of its arms around the amount of discovery parties do in cases where the amount at issue isn't case in grady not only did the advantage ask for fifteen thousand that case was designated as an l m case of what they call a law magistrates in champaign county but it was clearly treated as a case seeking less than fifty thousand dollars in damages so in that case the defendant could have reasonably argued he was surprised when the verdict came in at ninety seven thousand dollars and that's what i think grade stands for and i think in grady i would i would also urge the court to review the just the two thousand and eleven fourth district decision and diaz versus a d m which was a rule twenty three decision and therefore not precedent decision that decision was written by a judge thomas little i'm sorry take that back it was written by justice polk oh crap with justices knack and cook brady and i quote any judgment that exceeds fifty thousand dollars should be reduced to fifty thousand dollars if the damages sought did not exceed fifty thousand dollars i think what that language is telling you a careful reading  will say that the brady reduced the verdict in that case to fifty thousand for two reasons one there wasn't any affidavit pursuant to rule two to two and two the amount of the damages sought or not in excess of fifty thousand did not put the defendant on notice that's the exposure that he was facing so i think you have to read brady more carefully than i think the trial court and defendant does and you have to look at brady and look at the facts in brady and i think that brady is clearly limited to cases initially one seeking was fifty thousand and thirty is returned or i think in excess of fifty thousand do you agree that in that instance the excess portion of the decision credible argument that there was no personal jurisdiction over mr khan and i don't believe a credible argument can be that there is no subject matter jurisdiction for the court over this and i think the court i have the jurisdiction to enter the judgment in the amount of energy i think every single judgment entered in any case without a rule two two two affidavit attached to the complaint indefinitely judgments that have long ago been pay could be challenge if if the court considers her decide that this is a void judgment and i can say in my experience practicing law for more than twenty five years here in cook county in the out and the collar counties i have run across a handful of rule two to two affidavits in my career well like i that and just as a practical matter i don't believe the language of rule two two two puts most attorneys on notice of a rule that requires a rule two to two affidavit attached to every case filed seeking damages i think once an attorney a reasonable attorney reading rule two to two a day and it's a quick ability says to himself all right it doesn't apply to all cases only certain cases so if i file one of those certain cases i better make sure i have an affidavit if not i don't know how be can require you to file one in all cases i'm finally just and wrapping up if the court believes that this judgment is not a void one but a voidable one i've addressed in my brief and i'll briefly say that i don't believe the record different matter well it did the court have if the court lacked jurisdiction over just the portion that was in excess of fifty thousand is that what what would be the rule here yes because normally i mean i think it's maybe voidable in a situation where there's a request for a last fifty thousand i'm not sure i read in the morning in his even void it's doing this because i don't think the court was ousted of its jurisdiction here but we have seen matters where the court is outside of the jurisdiction i think the court was out sort of mr stiction over any model in excess of fifty thousand especially with respect to the cases with that there was cases that  the rule is to make sure we're too avoid a situation where someone is i do the impression that they're going to be limited to fifty thousand dollars in damages and that afterwards a surpris that case well if we look at ordinary rules it's very construction his interpretation this is actually probably more reasonable than yours because they specifically says the rule applies to all cases if you read all the provisions together b only applies to cases where you're actually seeking less than or seeking not an excess i respect that disagree and i believe that you know where in the discovery of a plot it's gotten about the rule itself i'm just saying i think there's a another reasonable interpretation to the rule as opposed to the one that you placed i understand ther to what about what about that whole line of cases that talks about mandatory versus discretionary another words something becomes mandatory here now this is a supreme court but if if a piece of legislation doesn't have a provision as to what happens if you don't file the affidavit then it's merely a discretionary suggestion whereas if the rule says if you don't file th and you're seeking more than fifty thousand your judgement over fifty thousand will be voided or will be void and i believe that's exactly what the all sides if the damages are in excess of fifty thousand dollars  less than fifty thousand dollars therefore we we request the provisions approach to twenty two people or to twenty two discovery it also requires an affidavit that says we're seeking an excess of fifty thousand dollars well eliminates the h to an amount not excess just prior to that the sentence says if the damages sauce do not exceed fifty dollars so there is clearly a  that is specific when it refers to the judgment and it's only in those damages sought to not exceed fifty thousand if the judgment or if the damages sought to not exceed fifty thousand this rules all over the last year about that i don't think we're really concerned with i think they were concerned dealt with if one of the purposes behind the rule is to prevent someone from seeking less getting a larger judgment and then trying to us in the second clause it doesn't make sense the way it was written to interpret it that way the rule limits itself immediately so i'm not sure that the if they wanted to suggest that every paragraph to try to make sense of the whole thing and i'm just saying i'm not sure that the applies in every civil case simply because it was you know put in a provision after your graph a which says political billing judge i think he doesn't apply to every civil case it applies to any civil action seeking money damages shall have a test initial in the parties affidavit that the total money damages sought does or does not exceed fifty thousand dollars it's not any civil action it's civil action seeking money damages and you have to express which money damages are being sought and that affidavit according to paul two twenty two hold true in this case i think though that if if someone were to come in like they did in the in the charles if every other area of the case great that that the court  authorized to enter why do you think this waters boy if we rely on the only case that interprets it just break the place of the right to rely on you know race gray gravy was a case where the and greedy they came in on the motion to reduce it suppose the party did not permit all such a motion with the order then still be valid they didn't it wasn't there further what are required to back that judgment out i think the court is required to knock the judge now but the but the court did not in every case what is it well it goes to the mistake they took with that kind of m soley on the basis of the excess amount yes yes yes and if there's no other questions all right thank you thank you right  complaint they filed i believe they were done in a separate rule so that could it was easily understandable that it applied to all cases and to i don't think they would have gone out of their way to rule two to two to start with paragraph a this lot of different cases it was accepted and designated as a lot of vision case the parties treated that way so right from the beginning everyone recognized from the rules designating what complaints are and how they're all signed and how they're handled in the port there it's routinely not done and i don't believe there's i don't believe that very many lawyers believe that affidavit has to be attached to those kinds of complaints i would say this read the rule i believe the benefit of the rule is designed to protect litigants and i believe it's designed to protect primarily plaintiffs because plaintiffs filed lawsuits in personal injury cases the vast majority of those are handled on the plaintiff side by a contingent fee lawyer and  does or does not exceed if that's any civil action of the rule applies to out all civil actions i don't believe the supreme court intended to bury a general proposition that covered  interfere so i think it might my view who talk to two is to affect it's what i believe its purpose is is if you want to be protected as a point to filing a case for less than fifty thousand dollars and the plaintiff's attorney if you want to have the protection it was i think that's why because most defendants are paid on an hourly basis i defense lawyers paid on an hourly basis that's why they don't get a chance to file these affidavits they and the protection is clearly directed to the plaintiff in the plaintiff's bar i think