this case involves primarily the issue of electronic filing within the to page county circuit court but because the court takes the case as a whole i'm also going to briefly review the other issues present in this in this manner this is a simple real a straight real estate transaction there was a listing agreement executed on may november twenty fourth two thousand and nine between my client the realtor and the andrews who are the defendants in this case march thirty first two thousand and ten a contract was was submitted to my a to my client and her clients the andrews s providing for one million one hundred twenty six thousand dollars the original listing price was one million three hundred fifty thousand dollars as it turns out the andrews were in the process of getting a divorce of that point in time mrs andrews cindy decided that she would prefer to stay in the home and she wanted to buy out her husband and she decided to make an offer and she described it as an offer in her emails of five dollars more than the offer made by the third party at that point she also indicated that if the third party raised their offer that she would be willing to make a counteroffer for the property the third party decided not to do that mrs andrews wind up wound up buying the house essentially from herself and her soon to be ex husband there was a deed signed by both the enders giving the house to mrs anders there was a closing shortly thereafter in and ten there was a judgment for dissolution of marriage within that judgment was a marital settlement agreement an agreement signed by both the andrus within that settlement agreement and therefore within the judgment entered by the circuit court they listed the fair market value of the property as one million one hundred twenty six thousand dollars and five dollars the same price that mrs andrews paid for the property they also listed real estate commissions doing knowing in the marital settlement agreement of eleven thousand two hundred sixty dollars which is the same amount my clients would have been entitle to out of the sale of the property well unfortunately the ender's decided not to pay the real estate commission and a lawsuit sued the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the motion to dismiss was heard in the circuit court at the hearing judge kelsey posed issues that were not briefed by the parties and were never argued and he ruled based on as you can see in the transcripts he ruled based on the issues that he himself raised and he dismissed the case with prejudice not even allowing me the opportunity to replete thereafter in order to address the law and the issues raised by judge kelsey for the first time i filed a motion to reconsider whereupon i way i addressed those issues in the law in the second circuit and in this court we went to the original presentment of the motion the first time it was up in court the defendants chose to argue on that day they didn't file a brief they made an argument judge kelsey looked at me told me i had a bad motion i ask him why he said there was a statute that i by a would my understanding is that a motion to reconsider is a common law remedy and i asked him which statute it was that i violated he couldn't identify the statute in fact he couldn't identify the standards for motion to reconsider generally he eventually denied my motion any in doing so took back his position that there was a statute i violated because again he couldn't identify what statute that was and in fact there wasn't one and i do i do my motion to reconsider was filed electronically after the denial of my motion to reconsider i also filed my notice of  rights i believe it was an appliance with the rules and i'll say well i'll tell you why a couple things with respect to specifically to the electronic filing which is an issue that's presented as certified the fine what a judgment enforcement proceeding document is i would argue to you that the authorization for the electronic filing program which came from the order of this court m one eight three six eight on october twenty second two thousand and three does not contain any of those prohibitions it does not tell you page county that it can only accept certain documents and can accept other documents and it doesn't define an appellate document either therefore court it would have no effect therefore under the the language which at best is vague and ambiguous but under the language itself it isn't it it doesn't constitute a certainly a motion to reconsider is not an attempt to enforce a judgment so that doesn't that language doesn't apply either and in that in that vein i'd like to point out and it's interesting that the  case proceeding us dealt with the mailbox rule there are three cases from discord that are are essentially relevant to this issue first the vision point versus hoss case decided by this court in two thousand and seven it said that the circuit courts have it within their power to adapt their own rules but they are quote without the power to change substantive law or impose additional substantive burdens upon li imposing these additional restrictions he's filing restrictions and saying you can file this case and not that case you can file this document and that not that document first of all it's ambiguous but beyond that it is additional burden upon the litigants that this court in the house case said that the local courts were not within their power to do it has authority to adopt a filing it in conjunction with the mandates issued by discord but it does not have the authority to restrict the filing in a manner and in a circumstances that are not mandated by this court and this court did not mandate certain restrictions on the filing not at all with the burden is that certain that certain cases would not be allowed because if they were context that the burden is that they are distinguishing between cases and just distinguishing b how do you how with how cases can be filed from one case to another and that that was not part of your mandate when you allowed the e file ing program to be to begin with and this is similar to the mailbox rule that you that was discussed in the harrisburg case quoted a few minutes ago in that case  know what that's like you can just drop it off at the docking department and they take care of everything but i'm a sole practitioner whose office is a mile from the page county border regions twenty miles from me so that's additional time and additional expense for my accepted or well they accepted the filing when i filed electronically part of the process involves a response back  from the county saying that they received their document and then another response response back from the county saying that they accept your document and they did that they received it they accepted it they filed it had they come back and said you know we're not going to we don't accept notices of appeal or we don't accept motions to reconsider i could have at that point for going to the courthouse and taken care of that or if i were perhaps but that the next day a day late i could of file something with the court explaining the circumstances as to why it's a day late which is also allowed under your rules but i wasn't given that opportunity because i didn't find out until the appellate court ruled that this was know my understanding and i can't i don't know all of the numbers and i don't have specific information from the clerk but it is in response to this case i received telephone calls from appellate appell offices that's all they do and they told me to been years since they filed any documents other than electronically and it's my understanding that there have been appeals decided in this court and in the courts where the notice of appeal had been filed electronically in the second district or with the circuit court to to confer jurisdiction upon the second district i mean they're going to peel's ruled upon and that there are appeals pending where this  been done and again that's the practice of law i think in the twenty first century i mean we've been encouraged and there's an article i quoted in my briefs from justice  jorgensen in the second district encouraging people to use electronic filing it's good for the environment it's less paper it's more efficient it's required in federal court and that's what i did but as as the pointed out notices of appeal are to be liberally construed to affect the means of justice so that if the if the defendant is properly notified of the basis of the appeal and keep in mind there was no prejudice to the to the other side they were served with these documents the same way they would have been served otherwise exactly the same way there was no prejudice whatsoever and what's really important is if you look at the context of what this happened how this occurred let's say today was the thirtieth day and i had to file a notice will feel today according to the the statutes and according to the case law as interpreted by this court i could drop it in the mail today could maybe be not postmarked until day thirty one thirty two thirty three it may not be received until they thirty five thirty six thirty seven and that's ok that's accepted but i could file  electronically today this moment it could be received instantly and that's not any good that doesn't make sense that's inconsistent with the mandate from two thousand and three it's inconsistent with the practice of law in the twenty first century and furthermore it's obvious that this wasn't just not an not a bit in fact if you look at rule five point zero three in response to this case and this ruling by the appellate court the local rule has now been changed to specifically allow the notice of appeal to be filed electronically and to specifically take away the restrictions on what constitutes a filing case that's been removed by the little the new local rule in effect today as a result of the ruling by the  good morning my name is john the time i represent one of the appleby's robert enders john north is sitting at counsel table he represents cynthia anders he has adopted my briefs pursuant to motion  and may please the court i would first like to state as briefly as possible the position of the appleby's in this matter because the  appeal i would further i would further like to point out that there was more than a brief colloquy regarding the electronic filing i addressed the matter before judge kelsey at the circuit level if you read the transcript you'll see that before judge kelsey ruled he asked me if i wanted to make an a response to counsel's arguments on the merits or whether i wanted to stand there mute and i said i will stand here mute because i did not want to reveal any jurisdiction at that point it was more than a passing argument it was a substantive argument now under the rules existing in two page county at the time this matter rose also didn't come close to complying with the rules on electronic filing in the interest of candor i learned yesterday morning just before i came down two weeks from wheaton that at eleven fourteen on tuesday  of the new rules otherwise i'll put him back in my briefcase go back home at any rate rule five point zero three of the pilot program provided that there were three ways that a case could be case one the plaintiff electronically files its complaint to any defendant's first response of pleading is electronically filed or three all parties agree to designate the case as in the filing case and an order of court to that extent is entered there's nothing ambiguous in those words whatsoever nothing ambiguous and none of those events ever happened plaintiff did not electronically file its complaint we did not electronically file our responsive pleadings we never agreed and never had any conversation about the matter court was uttered now counsel has indicated that he didn't willfully violate the rule i submit that if he didn't willfully willfully will willfully violated he did ignore there is your honor jurisdiction is the building block building block on which all our litigation rests its stuff first case we study and law school international shoe the very first case we read talks about jurisdiction because without jurisdiction everything we do here is rhetoric it was table conversation we have to have jurisdiction before anything else exists then mcmahon let me take you there that's where you want to begin  filing took the filing outside the time limits set by the courts so the past thirty days if something is filed on the thirty first day its jurisdiction is gone if something is filed then the sixtieth day jurisdiction is gone sense your honor and cite saying as long as the as long as the notice of appeal makes it to the pilot some point then what's the big deal well that makes it there on the thirty first day it's a big deal there is prejudice to my client in this case my client hired someone who followed the rules and the rights of my client should not be subordinated to a client whose attorney doesn't follow the rules pure and simple and that's prejudice  axiomatic to the practice of law and to the administration of justice that court rules must be followed case law supporting that is the luminous it's not relevant whether we think the rule is convenient it's not relevant whether we think we could write better ones it's not relevant whether we think technology can make the practice of lot easier virtually every level of our judicial system circuit court appellate court supreme court has rules committees if the rule is not good if you change the rule you don't ignore it and you don't you don't laterally make the decision that rule is silly you have to live within the rules that govern the litigation you undertaking the rules provide order and structure to a system that demands order and demands structure in the final analysis the law is the still to a simplest form commonsense codified fairness and the rules of pleading the rules of evidence the rules of discovery the rules of procedure are all there to ensure that the system functions in an orderly efficient and just manner without the rules litigation would become a version of talk shows where people debate opposite points of view with work out without regard to logic foundation volume of their voice or courtesy we must have rules and those rules must be followed and simply put counsel for the appellant has not set forth one valid reason why he didn't follow the rule his brief argues the unsupported promise that failure to recognize the electronic filing of his motion and notice would lead to chaos it is the failure to follow the rules that would lead to chaos adhering to the rules simply leads to order he also argues that the rules burdensome there are one hundred two counties in the state of illinois over the county and du page county under a pilot program at electronic filing that's one hundred other counties where those lawyers have to get in their car and go over the courthouse and file the papers i don't think that's unduly burdensome nonetheless one could argue that i rules do sometimes burden us requests to admit our onerous everyone lives in fear of that twenty ninth day statues of limitations on toward actions we live in fear of two years and one day but the fact of the matter is simply because it's hard doesn't mean it's unfair i had the good fortune  when i was in law school to clerk for a chance or in the cook county circuit court a brilliant judge and i was worried about the bar exam and he said john they don't expect you to know everything they do expect you to go and look it up that's all we're asking here look it up i looked up the rule when i saw the c filing i said why is he even finding this this isn't a filing case i looked at the rule i raised the rule before judge kelsey judge kelsey really didn't rule one way or another he simply denied the motion but i raised the rule and i stood mute after raising that rule so that there was no read beslan of jurisdiction fairness dictates that the rights of the litigant hoose attorney follows the rules should not be subordinated to the letter going to his attorney doesn't follow the rules i would submit that the appellate court's decision was not only the right one and properly reasoned but it wasn't fact the fair one and the just one i hope i've covered everything of the court has any questions for me i did not address the merits of the case because i don't think you need to and i thank you for your time thank you well first of all i would say the reason he didn't address the merits of the cases because if you look at the case law he can't address the merits of a case he can address the facts of the case he can't address the marital settlement agreement in the judgment for dissolution so the only thing he really has is the e filing and with respect to the specifics of old rule five point zero three it references appellate and close judgment enforcement perceiving sacraments would that section refer to if not a notice of appeal i have no idea judge your honor because i think it's sufficiently vague that it's unclear what they mean and isn't didn't the appellate court rely on or was in the argument made that first of all norm even without her be it did say that your honor but in addition though again that's a requirement that was not part of the original mandate of this court and by the people in the page county deciding to make additional requirements beyond those which this court authorized it was adding additional burdens on litigants that it was not authorized to do and again the it keeps the language in part d about appellate and post judgment foresman proceeding documents but more specifically in part b i believe it is it specifically allows notices of appeal which indicates that they still i mean either of these terms are defined either in all five point zero three or a new part one or three but that recognizes that the that the people in your page hide themselves view a distinction between a notice of appeal and an appellate document i'm not sure what they think an appellate document is to be honest it's not defined but it's clearly based on their own their own language a new five point three they don't consider a notice of appeal to to follow under that term and clearly i don't think a motion to reconsider is a is an appellate document and it wouldn't be considered a close judge of enforcement documents i would it i would assume that that would be considered perhaps a garnishment or you know a citation discovery assets perhaps something like that but not a motion to reconsider there was no prejudice here the document was filed very similar to how the extension of the mailbox rule came about which was ultimately how to fide i believe it's appropriate and correct for this court to understand what he did when it when it set this mandate originally and understand what it was encouraging electronic filing of documents the document was filed it was except that a copy was printed and put in the court file with a stamp on it and the date it was file know to go back to the office and get my computer and filed electronically that didn't happen here what happened here is they did accept it had they done what would likely happen in person if you want a law to file there if they come back and said you know basis if i showed up on day thirty four o'clock in the afternoon say and then it wasn't accepted and i had to go back in and a address that i could file a motion explaining that in explaining why it should be allowed anyway and under the bowtell case this court has allowed liberal construction of notices of appeal i mean it isn't a four it isn't a form over substance thing it's basically has the other party been fairly notified of the nature of the appeal that's a paper towel case says andy and it specifically says it shouldn't take form over substance in this case it was filed they did receive it it was accepted  there's the opportunity for the clerk's office to accept or reject documents that's part of the program too and they and they accepted it and he added that you know it didn't it didn't come up until the until much later i mean they could have easily retracted it and that's part of the deal you get this you get the e mail saying that they receive your document and then you get a follow up email that says whether they accept it or not and in this case they received it and they accepted it and they printed out a hard copy and stuck it in the original