No. 3–06–0249

______________________________________________________________________________ File d January

28, 2008 IN THE A

PPELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS THIRD DI STRICT A.D., 2008 JERO ME B. K

LOSE a nd R UTH C . KL OSE, ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court Plai ntif fs-Appel lan ts, ) f or th e 1 3th Judi ci al Ci rc ui t, ) La Sa lle C o un t y, I llino is ) v. ) No. 00–MR–123 ) FR EDERIC K E. MENDE, C OMMISSIONER ) Ho no r ab le OF HIGHW

AY S, MER

IDEN TOW

NSHIP, ) Eug en e P . D augh

eri ty LA SALLE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ) Jud ge, Pr esiding Defe ndan t-Appell ee. )

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEO’ BR

IEN de li v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t:

______________________________________________________________________________ Defend ant Frederi ck Mende, as comm is si oner of hi

ghway s of Meri den Townsh

ip (h erein after tow nshi p), br o ug ht t his mo t io n t o re o pe n pr o o fs p ur su ant t o se ct io n 2- 14 01 o f t he C o de o f C ivi l Procedu re in a declar at o r y ac t io n f

il ed by pla in tif fs Jerome an

d Ruth Kl ose. 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (We st 2002 ). The

tria l court gran

ted Me nde ’smotion

and the Kl osesappe aled. W

e af f i rm . FA CTS T his acti on

b eg an i n 20 00wh en th e tow n sh i p s en t n oti ce to th e K l ose s th at i t i n ten de d to impro ve Nor

th 4550 th Roadby

bl acktopping i

t eastward from East 10 th Roa d a di sta n ce of 3,0 00 f eet, re quir ingthe 66 fee

t of ri gh t-of -w ay to b e a v ai l ab l e. The K

l ose s’ l an d i s b oun de d on th e n orth and west si de s, re sp ecti

v el y , by th e road s. A cc ordi

n g to co mmi

ssio ner Mend e, t he to wnsh ip h ad acqui red
a righ t to a 66 -f oot-wi derigh t-of -wa y by sta tutory de dica ti on i n 1 856 . A s p roof

of the righ t, Mende sent t he Klo se s c er t ain pa ge s o f t he t o wn ship led ge rke pt by t he Me r ide n t o wn ship clerk whi ch2

in dic ated a dedi cation b

y s tatut e of the 66-f

oot -wide road i

n 1856. The town s h i

p w as un ab l e to produce an y o t he r do cu me nts, i nc l udi ng th e su rve y that wa s pre

pared at the ti me the roads were constructed, the origi

na l order de di cati

ng th e road or th e pl

at des cri bi ng th e road. The Klose s o bject ed t o t he t ow nship’s p lans, c laimi ng that t hey

ow ned by wa rr ant y deed t he road righ t-o f-way s at iss ue. The Kl

oses fi le d an action for declarator y rel ie f, seeki ng an or der by the courtt ha t t he y o wn ed fee simp le t it le to the road right-of-ways f or No rth 4550 th Road and East 10 th Roadin Meri den Townsh

ip. On t he t ow nship’s mo t ion, t he t rial co ur t dismissed t heir co mplaint and deni ed t heir r equ est t o a mend. The t rial co ur t fou nd t ha t t he t o wn ship ha d a va lid dedi cation an

d that it did no t mat t er in r eg ar d t o t he de cla r at o ry ac t io n w he t he rt he t o wn ship ha d a cq uir ed fee simp le t it le
or an e ase men t in the property

at i ssue. The K

l oses appe aled. On appeal , this court held that t he townshi p’s cl ai m to the roads fai

le d be ca us e t he t o wn ship did not esta

bl i sh a v al i d ded i cation of the roads. Kl

ose v. Mende , 329 Il

l . Ap p. 3 d 543, 5 47, 7 71 N.E.2d 960 , 96 4 (2 001 ). Acc ordi ng to t h i s court, th e docum en ts off ered b y the town sh

i p were i n com pl ete and thus i

nsuf fici ent to es tabl

i sh the dedi cation. Klose , 329 Ill . App. 3d at 547, 771 N.E.2d at 96 4. S pe cif

ica lly, t his co ur t det er mined t hat t he led ge ren t r ies pr es en t ed by t he t o wn ship fai le d to satisf y the requirem ents f or a v alid ded icat ion as t he st at ut or y req uire ments include t he pe ti ti on re qu esti n g p er m i ss i on to bui l d the roads, a sur veyor ’s r epo rt , su rve y and plat , a s we ll as the road com m i ssi on’ s order g

ran tin g the dedi cation. Klose , 329 Ill . App. 3d at 546-47, 771 N.E.2d at 963, quo t ing 18 51 I ll. Laws 72 ( §4) . T his co ur t also fou nd t hat t he t ow ns hip ha d acqui red an
eas ement by p r es cr ipt io n fo rt he po r t io n o f t he r o ad s inuse at the ti me of the acti on. Klose , 32 9 I ll. App. 3d at 548 -4 9, 771 N. E. 2d a t 965 . T he cour t vacat ed the t rial cour t’s dism

issal of the Kloses’
com plai nt an d ordere d the

tria l courtt o e nt er an o rd er est ablishing the Klose s’ fee s imple tit le and3

t he t ow nship’s p re scr ipt ive ease ment rights in the ro ads. Klose , 329 Ill . App. 3d at 549, 771 N.E .2d at 965. The record indi

cates that t hereaf

ter the Kl oses fi le d a m ot ion to reinstate, t o enter a se co nd
am ended c omp l ai

nt, to set a da

te f or the town sh

i p’s an swe r, an d to order t he townshi

p to produce righ t-o f-way ma ps. Various matt er s we re co nt inuo usly pend ing in the t rial co ur t unt il the t o wn ship fi le d it s p et it io n t o r eo pe n p r o o fs p ur su an t t o se ct io n 2
- 14 01 o f t he Co de o f Civ il Pr o ce du r e o n Ap r il 10, 2003. 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2002). The to wnsh ip’ s secti on 2- 14 01 p eti

ti on i s b as ed on docum en ts disco ve red b y townsh ip of fi ci al s i n March 2003, which i

ncl uded the origi

nal order dedi cat ing t he r oa ds a t issue, t he o riginal sur veyor ’s r epo rt and p lat, and r ece ipt s fro m adjoining l andownersi

ndi cati ng th e com pensati on tha t was p aid f

or the taki

ng of thei r la nd f or t he roads. Pu rsu ant to amot ion by t he Klos es, t he to wnsh ip’ s origi nal section 2-1401 peti

tion was dism

is sed i n M ay 2003 b ase d on the peti

tion ’sf ail ure t o a deq uat ely asser t due diligence by t he t ow nship. An
am ended petition was f

il ed on June 16, 200 3, which se t for t h t he t ow nship’s d ili genc e effo rt s and in cl uded affid av it s fr o m co mmiss io ne rMe nd e a nd t o wn ship cle rk E llen A t he r t o n a t t es t ing t o t he ir ef f orts. A s econ

d am ended p eti

tion wasf i l ed on Jun e 15, 2 005. In re spo nse t o t he se co nd amend ed p et itio n, t he Klos es filed an a nswe r, defens es a nd count erclai

ms. As def

enses , the Kloses rais ed, in applic abl e part, t he f

oll owing: that Men

de was negligent and no t diligent in sear ching fo r t he origi nal r o ad de dic at io n d o cu men t s; t ha t t he t o wn ship clerk wa s ne glig en t in

maintaining r oa d de dicat ion d oc ument s and failed t o c omp ly with t he ap plic ab le
re co rd -k eep ing

requiremen

ts; that newl

y di scovered evi

dence gen erall y c ann ot be used

to vacate a fi nal j udg men t; th at M en de ’s err or of l aw i n r el y i ng on the le dger entry as

suf fi ci ent evi dence prohi b i ts t he fi nal judgm ent from bei ng va cated; and that the petition is barred by

the two- ye ar

st atu te of4

li mi tat ions. Th e s ec ti on 2 -14 01 a cti on was transf

erredon the

Kl oses ’ m otion to a di f f eren t trial court judge , whi

le the other pendin

g ma tt ers were consi

dered and di sposed of by

the o rigina l

tria l court j udge
. A heari ng ensued on the townshi

p’s section 2-1401 petition. A t t he h earin g, Mende testif

ie d
as f ol l ows . He

wa s a ppoi nte d town

sh i p roa d c om m i ss i one r i n 1 989 . In

200 0, i n r es pon seto t he Kl oses’ lawsu it, he se ar ched for t he origi nal road dedicati on documen ts but could not fi

nd them . He searched t he r oa d co mmi

ssio n fil e ca binets , w hich wer e loc at ed in t he to wn garage. He al so searched
a saf e i n the old town ha

ll , which h ad been used as pa r t o f t he Me r ide n T o wn ship o ffice s u nt il March 20 03
. On Ma r ch 14 , 20 03 , he an d s ev er al o t he rt o wn ship officials wer e clea ning o ut t he old town ha ll in p r ep ar at io n fo rit s d emo lit ion when t hey disco ver ed a box o f “ancient ” do cument s in a cupboard. He de sc r ibe d t he ar ea wh er e t he cu pb o ar d w as dis co ve r ed as ina cc es sible , blo ck ed by o ld chai rs an d v o t ing bo o t hs. T he bo x in which t he docum

en ts were l oca ted wa s c ov ered

i n h ea v y du st. He t oo k t he do cument s t o t he new t ow n h all and we nt t hr ou gh t hem with t he t ow n clerk and t he t o wn ship asse sso r. On Ma rc h 18, 200 3, t hey disco ver ed t he original documents, in

cl udin g the order of t he r oa d co mmi

ssio ner s and the sur veyor’s report and pl ats establis

hi ng the dedi

cation of the roads at iss ue . He r ep o r t ed his f i n di n gsto his at t or ney the same d ay and s igned a n affidavit o ut lini ng t he ci rcumstances of

the di sc ove ry of the documen

ts. According to Mende, h is atto rney had i nstructed hi m through out the l i tig ati on to keep

l ookin g f or addi tion al i nf orma tion
. Ell en Atherton, the former town clerk, t es t ified as fo llo ws . Sh e b ec ame to wn cl erk in 1992 and held t he po sitio n when t he cu rr ent litigat ion wa s initiat ed. On Ma rc h 18, 200 3, she was wo rk ing wi th Me nde and others

at the n ew town bui l di ng w hen they i den tif i ed th e m i ssi ng d ocum en ts. She had ne ve rbe en in

the cupboard in

the old townha

l l where the docum en ts w ere f oun d a nd i t wa s n ot5

a pla ce where sh

e would h ave ex pectedt o find t ow nship re co rd s. I t was her unde rst anding t hat t he form er t ow n clerk had g iven her a ll the r eco rd s she was supposed to have an d that any ot her records
wo uld be in the safe o r a t t ow n hall. She did no t have a n office in t he o ld t ow n h all . She kept an off ic e in her bas em

ent. She kept the led

ger in a saf ety deposi

t box at t he b ank. She h ad nev er exam in ed it u nt il the inst ant act ion wa s filed. Ac co rd ingt o At her t on, t he le dger containe d drawin gs and other i

nf orma tion regar di ng r oads. Af ter t hey found the i

nf ormation i

n the l edger on the roads at i ss ue , s h e d i d n ot look f or a n y addi ti on al docum en ts b ec au se

i t wa s h er un ders tan di n g th at th e le dger ent ries w er e su ffi

cient . S he did n

ot in itially know that as t ow n clerk she w as a lso c lerk for t he road com m i ss i one r but lea rned tha t i nf orm ati on thereafter at a clerks’ t ra ining seminar. Acco rd ing to Atherton, Mende kept hi s own records, whi ch were m ai ntain ed i n the town garage to which she had access. She n

ev er f i l ed an y th i n g w i th th e L aS al

l e C oun ty recorder. I n the 13 y

ears that she was town cl erk, n o new roads were de

ve l oped i n the towns

hi p. T o wn ship t ru st ees Lar ry Zimmerman and D ave S chlesinge r t est ifi ed t hat t hey wer e wo rk ing with M ende at the old town hall when t he re co rd s we re disco ver ed. Acco rd ing t o S chlesinge r, t he cupb oard in which t he do cument s were f ound was i

nacces si ble. He expl

ai ned that i t t ook several hours of c l ean i ng to ac ces s the

cupb oard. Fo llowing the h

eari ng, th e tri al courtgranted the townshi p’s secti on 2-1401 petition to reopen pro ofs. In i

ts order , the trial

court stated t hat the newl y di scovered evi

dence prese

nted by Mende constitutedthe records t ha t t he ap pe llat e c o ur t de t er mined we r e n ec es sa ry t o es t ab lish a va lid ded icat ion. Acco rd ingly, the trial court deter mi ned that t he township satisf ied the m eritor ious defense elem en t nec ess ary

f or a sec tion 2-140 1 peti

tion
. The court also determi ned that the townshi

p was not negl ige nt and was not lacking in diligence in sear ching fo r t he o riginal re co rd s and t hat t he6

evi dence establ is hed that a reasonab le

search was

conductedof

all the lo gical plac es in which t he records w ould be

stored. The trial

court further f

ound that t he town cl erk’s record-keepin g wa s r eas ona ble, not negli

gent; that the existence of the origin al records constituted newly dis covered evi dence; tha t the town sh i p a ttorn ey di d n ot comm it an e rror o f l awin rely in g on the le dger entry as proof of a valid ro ad d edica t ion; and t hat t he t ow ns hip’s petition was not barred by the two- ye ar st at ut e o f li

mitat ions appl

i ca bl e to s ec ti on 2 -14 01 p eti

ti ons be ca us e i ts ori gi na l pe ti ti on wa s t imely f i l ed. Th e K l osesappe aled. AN AL YSIS The issue on appeal

is whether the trial

cou rt er red when i t gra nte d the tow

ns hi p’ s s ec ti on

2- 1401 p eti tion . 735 IL CS 5/2 -1401 (We st 2002 ). A petition pursua

nt to section 2-1401 see

ks relie f f rom a f in al order and judgm

ent after 30 da ys and be f

ore 2 y ears of i ts en try. 7 35 IL CS 5/2 -1401 (a) ( c) (We st 2002 ). To be entitled t o re lief, a petitione

rmus t show by a preponderance of

the evi dence that (1) a me r it o r io us de fen se o rcla im exi sts; ( 2) he ex er cis ed du e d ilige nc e in d is coverin g the defe nse or clai

m i n the origi

nal action; (3) des pit e t he pe t itio ner ’s diligence and t hro ugh no fault of his o wn, the erro r of fact or val id def ense or cl ai m wa s n ot pres en ted to th e tr i al cou rt d uri n g th e or i gi n al acti on ; an

d ( 4) th e p eti

t ione r exercised due d il i gen

ce i n b ri ngi ng th e se cti on 2-1 401 pe

titi on. La Ra bid a C hild r en ’s Ho sp it al & Research Cente r v . Ha rrison, 263 Ill . App. 3d 790, 796, 635 N.E. 2d 575, 579 (1994) . The purp ose of a se ct ion 2 -1 401 pet itio n is to bring t o t he at t ent ion o f the co ur t matt er s o f fact not app ear ingin t he r ec o r d t ha t wo uld ha ve pr ev en t ed t he ju dgment had t he court known of them
. Uni

versal Outdoor, Inc. v. Ci

ty of Des Plai nes , 23 6 I ll . Ap

p. 3d 75 , 80, 603 N.E.2d 5 85, 588 (1992 ). A
re viewing cou rt wil

l not distu rb a t rial court ’s grant o f a section 2-1401 pet ition ab sent an abuseof7

di scre tion
. K ul i kow sk i v. La rs on , 305 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 11 0, 114, 7 10 N.E.2 d 1275 , 1278 ( 1999)
. We be gin o ur an alys is by e xa mining wh et he rt he t o wn ship presented suf f i ci en t ev i den ce to establi sh a me rit o rio us de fe ns e. To estab l i sh the v al i di ty of a road de dication, the

statutory re qui re men ts include t he r oa d de dicat ion o rd er , t he sur veyor ’s r epo rt , su rve y and plat , a nd t he pe ti ti on see ki ng th e road creation. Klose , 329 Ill . App. 3d at 546-47, 771 N.E. 2d at 963 , q uo t ing 1851 Il l . Law s 72 ( §4). Th e b as i s of the town sh i p’ s s ec ti on 2 -14 01 p eti

ti on was t he disc ove ry o f the origi nal de dic at io n or der along wit h t he su rve yor ’s r epo rt and p lat, and r ece ipt s fro m adjoining lan downers. These are the ex act documents that this

court found were nec es sa ry b ut l acki n g to su st ain the v

al i di ty of the dedi cation of the roads at i ssue. Klose , 329 Ill . App. 3d at 547, 771 N.E .2d at 96 4 ( find ing t ha t t he r e w as no va lid d ed ica t io n be ca us e t he r e w as no o r de ro rpe t it io n in t he to wn clerk’s records ). The

record sug ges t s t hat t he to wnsh ip a pparently assum ed that the origin

al road de di ca ti on order an d s up po r t ing do cu men t s w er e lo st . Ha d t he t o wn ship kn o wn o f t he irexi stence and been abl e to pr esent the docume

nts durin g the origi nal proceedin

gs, the trial

co ur t ’s rulin g in it s f av orwould ha

ve b een af

fi rmed b y thi s court. Accordin

gly , the t ow ns hip has e st ablished t he exist ence of a merit or iou s de fense ne ces sar y to sus t ain its s ect ion 2 -1 401 pet itio n. We next examine whe t her t he t ow nship exe rc ised d ue d ili genc e in disco ver ing

the defense

or cla im in the or iginal act ion. The Klose s co nt end t hat t he to wnsh ip f ai le d to show by

a preponderance of t he ev ide nc e t ha t it was diligent and not negligent in its se ar ch fo r t he o riginal do cument s. T he Kl oses further content that no on e i n th e tow ns hi p m ade a com pletese arc

h f ort he do cument s and that the townsh i p was ne gli gen t in mai ntai ni ng th e road re cords. T o es t ab lish d ue dilig en ce , a p ar t y mus t sho w t ha t his fa ilur e t o de fen d w as t he r es ult of an
ex cu sa ble mi

stake and that he acted

re as on ab l y , not n eg l i gen

tl y , w h en h e f ai l ed to resi st the origin

al8

j udgm en t. Uni versal Outdoo r, Inc. , 236 Ill . App. 3d at 81, 603 N.E .2dat 589. The due dil ige nce element requires a

petitioner to have a

r ea so na ble ex cu se fo rfailing t o ac t wit hinthe appropriate tim e. Sm i th v. Ai roo m, Inc . , 114 Ill . 2d 209, 222, 499 N.E .2d13 81, 1386 (1986). A section 2-1401 pe ti ti on is no t int en de d t o affo r d a r eme dy t ha t r elie ve s a pe t it io ne rfr o m t he co nse qu en ce s o f his mi stakes or hi s counsel ’sne gli gen ce. Uni versal Outdoo r, Inc. , 236 Ill . App. 3d at 81, 603 N.E.2d at 589. To det ermi

ne the reasonable

ness of the p eti tion er’ s exc use , t he co ur t must loo k at all the ci rcumstances reg ard

i ng the en try of the j udg men t, i nc l udi ng the con du ct o f t he lit iga nt s a nd t he ir attorney s. Ai roo m, Inc . , 114 Il

l . 2d at 22 2, 499 N .E.2d at 13 87. The trial court determi

ned that the townshi

p undertoo k a reasonabl

e search f or t he origi

nal records and w as d ili

gent in do ing so . B ot h co mmi ssio ner Mend e and clerk Athe rto n testif ie d that they had s ear ched t he us ual st or age fil es a nd lo cat ions for the records and thatt he r eco rd s we re fou nd in a pl ace where n

ei ther one of them

wo uld have antic ipa

ted to wnsh

ip records to be stored. Trustee Schlesi nger testifi ed that t he do cu men t s w er e fo un d in an ina cc es sible ar ea o f t he o ld t o wn ha ll. Mende said that he was und

er orders from the townshi

p atto rney

to continue

lookin g for addi tional docum en ts throughout the li

tigation. In c onsiderin

g the in stant circum

stances, the trial

court noted that dil igen ce did not require t he townsh ip o fficia ls to search ev ery i nch of townshi

p propert y, 24 hours a da y, 7 d ays a we ek ( “24/ 7") , u sing all a va ilable ma npower. We agree wi

th the trial court that th e rec ord

demon strate s th

at th e tow n sh i p w as n ot n eg l i gen

t an d di d act d

i l i gen tl y i n pr es en ti n g i ts def en se i n the origi

na l action. The K l ose s f ur th er con ten d th at th e tow n sh i p c l er k f ai l ed to keep the road records as she was re quir ed by law t o d o a nd t hat t he cl erk’s f ai lure to perform h

er duties is a m

atter of law whi

ch can only be r eviewe d t hro ugh a n app eal, not a se ct ion 2 -1 401 pet itio n.9

The trial cou rt con cl ude d that the tow

n c l erk ’s rec ord- ke ep i

ng wa s rea son

ab l e, n ot n eg l i gen

t. It noted that, obviously

, Atherton was not t he cl

erk in 1856 when

the origi nal road docum

en ts were created. Atherton testifi

ed that wh en she took off

i ce, the prev

i ous cl erk gave her do cument s t hat she kept in her fil ing cabinet s at home, in the t ow n hall safe, a nd in the saf ety deposi t box. She expl

ai ned that Mende kept hi

s own rec ord s t o whic

h sh e had acce ss. Atherton bel ie ved that the l edger contain ed all the histo rical r eco rd s fro m the o rigin o f the t ow nship. Mo re ove r, t he status o f the town clerk’s record-keeping abil ities does n ot i

n di ca te t hat she w as no t diligent in sear ching fo r t he inst ant documents. A

th er ton testi f i ed th at sh e b el

i ev ed sh e h ad al l th e to wnsh ip records that she was required to h av e, th at sh e w o uld no t ha ve an t icip at ed an y re co r ds t o be in t he cu pb o ar d in t he o ld to wn hal l. W e thus f in d mi spl aced the Kl

oses’ argum

ent regardin

g the alle ged

n egl ect of recordkeepi ng as i t has no beari

ng on the cl

erk’s di li gence in loo king fo r t he inst ant re co rd s. We dec line to hold her acc ou nt able for any defi ci ency in the record-keeping wh

ic h occurre d m

ore than 150 y ears ago. The K

l ose s p oi nt to th e d ec i si on in Tucker v. Bunger , 108 Ill . App. 3d 227, 439 N.E.2d 488 (1 982 ), as su ppo rt t hat t he cler k’s a llegedly negligent r ec o r d- ke ep ing de fea t s t he t o wn ship ’s cla im of dil ige nce. In Tucker , the tow

n sh i p s oug h t to re l y on se con da ry re cordsmai

n tai n ed b y th e c oun ty to est ablish t he va lid it y of a roa d de di ca ti on b ec au se

the origi na l town sh i p re cords w ere

l ost or destroyed. Tucker , 108 Ill . App. 3d at 229, 4 39 N.E.2 d at 489 -90. T he co ur t t he r e s t at ed t ha t it
was th e “du

ty of th e tow n cl er k to m ai n tai n th e s ur v ey as pa rt of th e rec ord s of

th e t o wn ship .” Tucker , 108 Ill . App. 3d at 230, 439 N.E .2d at 490 . T he co ur t furt her st at ed t hat “a ru le req uiring such records to be m

ai ntain ed will in sure that in

future cases

to wnsh ips *** wil l n ot seek t o be ne fit from an i ntentiona l n egl ect of duty.” Tucker , 108 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 231, 439N.E.2d a

t 491.10

Tuckerdoe s n

ot sup po rt t he Kl

oses ’ pos i tion . In that cas e, t he t o wn ship faile d t o maint ain any docum en ts to estab l i sh

a suf f i cien t record of

the road dedi cation. Tucker , 108 Ill . App. 3d at 230-31, 439 N.E.2d at 491. Moreo ver, the Tuckercou rt n oted th at th e c oun ty had re co nst ru ct ed a nd
ma in taine d the records while

the townshi

p fai le d to do so. Tucker , 108 Ill . App. 3d at 230-31, 439 N.E.2d at 491. In

the i nstant ca se, there w as n

o in tenti onal ne glect of

duty
. A the rton maint ain ed in her fil es a ll the r eco rd s t hat had be en pr ovid ed he r by t he pr ior t ow n clerk . S he t est ifi ed t hat she bel ie ved the c l erk’ s ledge

r book con

tai ne d al l the n ece ssa ry townsh i p record s. In

addition, because t he led ge rco nt ain s handwritten co pie s o f t he miss ing do cu men t s t r an sc r ibe d b y t he t o wn cle rk, it off ered s ome

docum en tation conc ern i ng th e ded i cation of va ri ous towns

hi p roads
. The t hird e lement we

ex am i n e i n con si deri n g a se cti on 2- 14 01 peti

ti on i s w h eth er , i n sp i te of t he town sh i p’ s d i l i gen ce an d th rough n o f aul t on i ts p ar t, i ts v al i d c l ai m wa s n ot made a ppa re nt t o t he trial courtat the ti

me of the origi na l proc ee di ng . Ou r revi ew of the record and the ci

rcumstances as setfor t h in the precedi

ng di li gence di sc us si on su pp ort th at th e tow n sh i p h as sa ti sf i ed th i s e l em en t. While t he t ow nship re lied so lely on t he l edger to su ppor t i ts a ss erte d de dica

ti on o f t he r ig ht
- o f- wa ys at is sue, t her e is no co nceivable r eas on it wo uld no t have br ou ght forth the origi nal documen ts had the town sh

i p kn own they were i n existen ce. We fi nd that the townshi

p has al so satisf ie d the f ourth el em en t ne ce ss ary

to su stai n i ts s ec ti on 2-140 1 peti

tion , dil i gen

ce i n b ri ngi ng th e peti tion
. The record establis

hesthat the

docum en ts were o r igin ally dis covered

on March

14, 200 3, d

uri ng the cl ea nu p of the ol d town ha l l . Me nd e, A the rton and the town sh i p a ss es sor be ga n g oi ng thr ough the con ten ts of the box and c at alog ing ite ms the next da y. The documen

ts relev ant to t hi s appeal

were ide ntif ie d on March 18, 2003. Men de then contacted counsel

f or the town sh

i p, wh o fi l ed th e se cti on 2-1 401 pe titi on on A pril 10, 200 3.11

We nex t consider the K

loses’ argumen

t t hat the townshi

p’s peti tion sh ould ha ve b een dis mi ssed be ca us e n ew ly dis co ve r ed ev ide nc e is not s uf f i ci en t to su ppor t a s ec ti on

2- 140 1 pe t itio n. The Kl oses ma in tain tha t newl y di scovered evi

dence, wi thout newl

y discovered facts, is insufficient to mai ntain a sectio n 2-140 1 pet ition and that the fail ure o f the to wnship’s

evi dence at trial

doe s n ot j ustif y the g ran t of i ts sec tion 2-140 1 peti

tion
. A pe ti ti on f orpo st judg ment re lief purs uant t o s ect ion 2 -1 401 allows t he pe t itio ner t o br ing be f ore the court ma

tt ers unkn own to bot h parties

and the court at t he tim

e of the origi

nal proceedin

gs that would have precl

uded the j udgm

en t entere d. Brow

ni ng , Ekte l on

Div isio n v. Williams , 25 6 I ll. Ap p. 3d 29 9, 302, 6 28 N.E.2 d 878, 8 81 (19 93). A section 2-1401 peti

tion requi res t ha t t he ne wly disco ver ed fac t s co uld no t re aso nably have bee n disco ver ed a t t he ti me of , or pri or to, the entr

y of jud gme n t f rom w hi ch rel i ef i s soug ht. Ga s P ower, In

c. v . F ors y

the Ga s C o. , 249 Ill . App. 3d 255, 260, 61 8 N.E.2d

959, 96 4 (199 3). The Klose s re ly on Peo ple v. To uhy , 397 Ill . 19 , 72 N.E.2d 82 7 (1947), and Peo ple v. Gr isw o ld , 89 I ll. App. 3d 6 61, 411 N. E. 2d 1 224 (1 980 ), t o s upp or t t heir ar gument t hat ne w ly dis covered

evi dence, wi thout newl

y di scovered f

acts, is an in suf fi ci ent basis f

or a section 2-1401 pe t it io n. While i

t appea rs tha t thereis a dis t inc t io n be t we en ne wly d isc o ve r ed ev ide nc e a nd ne wly dis covered

facts, ast he Klos es a sser t , t heir r eliance o n To uhy and Gr isw o ld

f ai l s. In b oth cas es, t he
cou rtsnote d that there

were n o ne wl y di sc ove red f ac ts a ss erte d a s th

e b as i s f ort he ne wly

dis covered evi dence. To uhy , 397 Ill . at 22, 72 N. E.2d at 829 ; Gr isw o ld , 89 Ill . App. 3d at 665-66, 411 N.E. 2d at 1227. Conversel

y, as the trial court noted in

the in stant case, the existence of the origin al records constitutednewl

y di scovered evi dence. The records them sel ves were n

ot new ev ide nce. The trial courtf ur th er n oted th at th e a pp el l ate cou rt i ss ue d i ts o rd er on th e p re su

m pti on th at t he o rigi nal12

records did not exi st. Hence, the fac t that t he record s did exi

st is a matter un

kn own at the ti me of t he o r iginal pro cee ding t hat wo uld have pr eclud ed jud gment aga inst t he t ow nship. The t est imony presented at the section 2-1401 h

earin g in dic ates t ha t t he o r igin al r o ad r ec o r ds co uld no t r ea so na bly have been d is cover ed at t he t ime o f t he pr io rjud gme nt . T he fac t t ha t t he r ec o r ds ex ist is a ne wly di scovered f

act suf f i cien t to sustai n a section 2-140 1 peti

tion
. The Kl osesnext arg

ue that the to wnsh

ip’ s petiti on should have been dis mi ssed b ecause a se cti on 2-1401 petition does n

ot provide a l

itigant rel i ef

f rom th e con seq

uen ces of h i s legal error. Acco rd ingto the K

loses, the t ownshi

p comm itted a le gal

error when i

t relied solel

y on the le dger entries as suf fi ci ent evi dence to establis

h the validi

ty of the road

de dic at io n, an d b ec au se it did so , it shoul d be f orecl osed f rom a sec ond pr

oceed i ng. Relie f is no t av aila ble under

section 2-140 1 f or errors of

l aw. Stev

enson v. Stev enson, 40 I ll. App. 3d 10, 14, 351 N.E. 2d 238, 241 (1976). Relief pursua nt to a section 2-1401 pe t it io n is o nly
av aila ble to li

tigants wh

o dil ige ntly pursue thei

r legal defen ses and rem

edi es i n c ourt. Ai

roo m, Inc . , 114 I ll. 2d at 22 4, 49 9 N
. E . 2d at 13 88
. Se ct io n 2
- 14 01 r elie f is no t av aila ble f or those w

ho disreg ard
avai l ab l e d ef ense s a nd rem edi eson t he ga mble t ha t a b et t er r es ult could b e obtain ed through ot her
means. Ai roo m, Inc . , 114 Il

l . 2d at 22 4, 499 N .E.2d at 13 88. In th e i n sta n t cas e, t he reco rd do es not suppo rt the Kloses’ asser tion t hat t he to wnship’s pos i ti on resul ted from i ts own negl

ige nce or in dif feren ce to its possibl

e defenses

and remedies. The ci rcumstances are not such that the to wnsh ip m ade a strategic determi

nation tha t it wo uld submit t he l edge r, r at he rt ha n t he o r igin al d o cu me nts, as evidenc e o f the validity o f the ro ad d edica t ion. Ce r t ain ly, had the townshi p known of the ex i stenc e of the origi na l de dica ti on do cu men t s, it wo uld ha ve pre sente d them

i n th e p riorproceedin

gs. We agree

with the trial court’s fin

din g that because13

t he townsh

i p di d not m ake a del i berate ch oic e to use the ledge

r, there wa s n o de l i be rate err or of la w. We nex t deter mi ne wh ether the townshi

p’s second a

me nded section 2-1401 petition is barred by th e two-y

ea r s tat ut e o f l i

m i tation. Th e K

l ose s a rgue that the tw o-y

ea r s tatute of l i m i tation ap plic ab le to section 2-1401 peti tions serv es to barthe

town sh i p’ s s ec ond

am en de d pe ti ti on sinc e it
was f i l ed more th an two y ea rs af ter th e a ppe l l atecou

rt de ci si on in t he firs t ap pe al, whi

ch was i ssued Decem ber 7, 2001, and re-iss

ued as a mended and modif

i ed upon deni al of pe ti ti on f or rehe ari ng on Apri l 18, 200 2. A se cti on 2-1401 petition f

or reli ef from judgm ent “m ust be f il ed not later than 2 y

ears af ter t he ent ry o f the or der or judg ment. ” 73 5 I LCS 5/ 2- 140 1( c) (We st 20 02) . T he pu rp os e o f the stat ut e’s time l

im it is to establish stabili

ty and f in ali ty in judi cial pro ceedings. Cro well v. Bila nd ic , 81 Ill . 2d 422, 427-28, 411 N. E.2d 16, 18 (1980). A cause of action set forth in an amende d plea ding is no t bar re d by a st at ut e o f limita t io n “if t he t ime p r es cr ib ed o r limi t ed ha d no t expir ed w hen t he origi nal pleadi ng wa s f i l ed , an d if i t sh al l appe ar f rom the or igi nal an d amend ed p leadings t hat t he
cause o f ac t io n a ss er t ed ** * in t he amend ed p leading g re w o ut of t he sam e transaction or occurrence setup i n the origi

na l pleadi ng.” 735 IL CS 5/2 -616(b) (We st 2002 ). An am ended compl ai nt relates back t o t he origi

nal com pl ai n t wh en i t su pp l i es a def en da n t wi th “‘ ” al l th e i n f orm ati on n ec es sa ry to prepa re the defense

to the subse quently

asserted cl ai

m.” ’ [Citation.]” Weber v. Cueto , 253 Ill . App. 3d 509 , 516, 62 4 N.E.2d

442, 44 8 (199 3). Th e q

ue sti on f ort he co ur t t o d et er mine is whet her t he two acti ons r

equi re the sam e proof ; i f so, rel ati on b ack i

s prope r. Web er , 253 Ill . App. 3d at 516, 624 N .E.2d at 44 8. T his court ’s origi

nal opini on from whi ch the townshi

p bri ngs i ts section 2-1401 petition was is sued on D ece mber 7 , 2 001 , a nd an opi ni on m odif i ed on d en i al of pe ti ti on f orreheari ng was issuedon

Ap r il 18, 2002. The to wnsh

ip f il ed i ts petition to reo pen proofs on Apri l 10, 200 3, and it s sec ond
am ended pe t it io n o n Ju ne 15 , 20 05
. T he ame nd ed pe t it io n se t fo r t h t he sa me fa ct s o f ne wly dis covered

evi dence as th e or i gi n al peti ti on b ut i n cl uded moresp ec i f

i cs as to th e tow

n sh i p’ s a ttem pts to fi nd the origi

nal docum en ts a nd adde d a f f i da vi ts f rom Mend e a nd A the rton attest in g to the search eff ort s. Because the ca

uses of action asse

rted in b ot h the origi

nal and am ended peti

tions grew

out of the same transaction or occur rence and require the same proof, relation back was p roper. The courtdid no t er rwh en it held t hat t he town sh i p’ s p eti ti on wasnot b arred

by the two-y ea r s tatute of lim itat ions appl

i ca b l e to se cti

on 2-1401 petitions. The

am ended peti

tion related back to t he origi nal peti tion whi ch wastim el y f i l ed wi thi n the two y

ear statutory l

i m i tations peri od. Based on the foreg oing disc

us si on , w e f i n d th at th e tow n sh i p’ s s ecti on

2- 14 01 peti

ti on to reopenpr oo fs was pr op er ly suppo rt ed, and t hat t he t rial co ur t did no t abus e its discr et ion in gr ant ing the town sh

i p leav e to reopen

proofs
. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of LaSalle County is affirmed. Affirmed. SCHMIDT, J., concurs. JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I would hold that the township’s negligent record-keeping defeats its claim of diligence. I would agree with the Kloses that Tucker v. Bunger , 108 Ill. App. 3d 227 (1982), is particularly instructive in this matter. In Tucker , a case involving very similar facts to the instant matter, the court noted that it was the "duty of the town clerk to maintain the survey as part of the records of the township." Tucker , 108 Ill. App. 3d at 230. However, Tucker did not, as the majority implies,15

hinge upon an intentional neglect of duty. Rather, the Tucker court noted that a lost or missing land reco rd is not construed against the prop onent unless the loss or destruction is attribu ta ble to the grantee. Tucker , 108 Ill. App. 3d at 230. Specifically, the Tucker court noted:

"The facts in the instant case would appear to fit this exception to the general rule. Here, the grantee of the dedicated lands, Timber Township, was charged with the legal responsibility for maintaining the public record of dedication. The township inexplicitly failed in that responsibility, and further failed to maintain in its files any secondary or reconstructed record so as to provide constructive notice to the unwary." Tucker , 108 Ill. App. 3d at 230-31. The Tucker court further noted that:

"The failure to maintain such records in th e instant case was undoubtedly a good faith error, but a rule requiring such records to be maintained will insure that in future cases, townships and other public record repositories will not seek t o benefit from an intentional neglect of duty." Tucker , 108 Ill. App. 3d at 231. I would ho ld, as in Tucker , that the township had a duty to16

maintain the records in the first place and cannot escape the consequences of its failure to properly maintain the records, whether intentionally or in good faith. With Tucker supporting the proposition that the township must maintain the records and failed to do so, I would hold that the township’s failure to maintain the records showed a lack of due diligence in presenting a fact or claim to the trial court at the time of the original action. LaRabida Children’s Hospit al v. Harrison , 263 Ill. App. 3d 790 (1992). Thus, I would hold it was error for the trial court to grant the township’s section 2-1401 petition. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.