FIFTH DIVISION February 25, 2011

No. 1-09- 1561 WILLA MANNING, Speci

al Adm in is trat rix of the Estate ) Appeal from the of Davi d Wi ls on, Deceased, ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of ) Co o k C o un t y. Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, ) ) v. ) No. 05 L 11551 ) THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a Mun ic ipa l C orpo ration, and ) LUKE DA

LY, Star No . 21064, ) T he Ho no r ab le ) Ri chard J. El

rod, Defendan ts-Appellees. ) Judge Presidin g. PR ESI DI NG JU STI CEFI TZ GE RA

LDSM ITH

de l i v ered th e j udgm

en t of th e c our t, w i th op inion. Jus t ices H ow se a nd E pst ein co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. OPINI ON Dav i d Wi l son ori

gi na l l y broug ht su i t agai nst def endan ts-app el l ees the C i ty of Ch i cago, a m uni ci pal corporation, an

d Detectiv

e Lu ke Da l y , star No. 21 064 (def

endan ts or as n am ed), related to an in

ci dent whi

ch resul ted in D etective Dal

y s hoot in g Wi ls on whi le in an i nterview room a t poli ce h eadq uarters . Fol

l owi ng tri al , a j ury returned a v

erdi ct i n f avor of de f

endan ts. Wilso n app ea led ; d ur ing t he pe nd en cy o f his a pp ea l, Wilso n d ied . T he r ea ft er , pla int iff Willa Mann in g, speci al adm in is trat rix of the estate of Davi

d Wi ls on, deceased (plai

ntif f), assum ed Wilso n's a pp ea l. C ur re nt ly, p laint iff pr es ent s nine co nt ent io ns o n r evie w, as se rt ing, in br ief, several errors by the trial

cour t co ncerni

ng, in part , jury i

nstruct ions, expert and witness t est imony, t he intr od uct ion o f a pr ior co nvictio n, a nd it s de cisions t o d ismi ss co unt s o f Wil so n'sNo. 1-09- 1561

2

compl ai nt and to deny

hi m l eave to fi le a second am

ended com

pla in t. Plai ntif f as ks that we reverse the tria

l c ourt 's en

try of j udgme

nt on the jury

's v erdict i n f avor of def

endan ts and that we rem and the matter f or a ne w tri al . We find, ho weve r, t hat we a re wit hou t jurisd ictio n t o c ons ider t his app eal bec aus e t he notice of appeal was not t im ely fi led. Therefore, pur suant to our anal ysi s bel ow, we must dism

iss this cause. BACK GROUND Because our deci si on turns on jurisdi ction an d the tim elin ess of the n

ot ic e of appeal, we ne ed n ot presen t a f ull reci tation of the f acts i nv olv ed i n the i nc i den t at is sue or the re sul

tin g j ury t rial. I nst ead , w e pr ese nt only t hos e fact s re levant t o o ur dispo sitio n her ein. As n ot ed, Wi ls on was sh

ot by Detective Dal

y w hi le in custody on a warrant f

or t wo forci ble fel onie s; the i

nci dent too k pla

ce i n an in terview room at poli

ce headquarters. Wi

ls on was shot in the stomac

h, ri ght f orearm and lef t upper a rm , and hi

s woun ds c aus ed pa

ral y si s i n h i s legs . In O ct obe r 2 005 , Wilson br ou ght a t wo -c ou nt co mplaint ag ainst defend ant s alleging w ill ful and wa n ton con duct a n d agen cy; h e l

ate r f i l ed an am en de d c om pl ai n t to i n cl ude two ad

di ti on al cou n ts fo rne glig en ce un de rt he sp ec ial d ut y exc ep t io n t o t he pu blic d ut y ru le. T he t r ial c o ur t ev en t ua lly di sm i sse d the ne gli gen ce c ounts a

nd d en i ed W i l son' s m otion to fi l e a s econ d am ended c omp l ai

nt. The cau se p ro cee ded t o a jury t rial o n t he willful and want on a nd ag ency co unt s. F ollo wing several m ot ions in limine and t he pr ese nt at ion o f multiple wit nesse s and for ensic evid ence , t he j ury returned a v

erdi ct i n f avor of de f

endan ts. In r esp onse to a spec i al

i nterroga tory, the j ury found that when

he sh ot Wi ls on, Detective Dal

y " reasonabl

y b elie ve[d] that such f

orce wasNo. 1-09- 1561

3

necessary to prevent im

mi nent death o r great bodil

y h arm to him

self ." Th e tri al cou rt en tere d j udg

men t on th e j ury 's ve rdi ct on Septem be r 4, 200 8. W

i l son m ove d f or an ex ten si on of ti me to f i l e h i s p osttri al moti on. Th e c ourt g

ran ted hi s m oti on on Oc tobe r 6, 200 8, g i

vi ng hi m un ti l De cem be r 19 , 20 08, to f

i l e h i s p osttri al moti on. Th en , on Dece m ber 18, 20 08, W

i l son m oved f or a sec ond extension to tim e to fi l e hi s posttrial

motion . Howev er, the court did not gra

nt h i s m otion unti l Dece m ber 29, 20 08, gi

vi ng h i m unti l Feb ruary 2, 2 009 , to f

i l e h i s p osttri al moti on. Th e re cord

f urth er i nd i ca testha t W i l son l ater f i l ed a m oti on f or a th i rd exte ns i on of ti me i n w hi ch to f i l e h i s p osttri al moti on, an

d that the c ourt g

ran ted thi s on Fe br ua ry 5, 20 09 , giv ing him u nt il Fe br ua ry 9, 20 09 , t o file a po st t r ial mo t io n. Wilso n file d h is postt rial motion f or a new trial

on February

9, 2009. The trial

court deni

ed hi s m ot ion on May 19, 200 9. Wi l son f

i l ed h i s n otice of a ppea l on Ju ne 17, 200 9. On Jun e 22, 2 010, du

ri ng th e pen den cy of h i s ap peal be f ore our court, W

i l son d i ed. Pla int iff was ap po int ed in t his mat t er o n Wilso n's b eha lf. AN AL YSIS We state at the out set that t he record is cl ear that the tr ia

l c ourt lost j urisdi

ction over Wi ls on's m atter as of Decem

ber 19, 2008, long b efore he f il ed hi s notice of

appeal and, thus, we ar e d ep r ive d o f jur isd ict io n t o he ar pla int iff's ap pe al. Ou r s tate ' s r ul es an d p roc ed ur es re ga rdi n g l eg al proce ed i n gsare n ot m ere s ug ge sti on s b ut, in stead, are required to be followed b y a ll parties to a cause of acti on in our co urts. See Trentman v. Kappel , 333 Ill . App. 3d 440, 441 (2002). Illi nois Supreme C ourt Rul e 303(a)(1) (Ill . S. Ct. R. 303(a)(1) (eff. May 30, 2008)) manda

tes that, in order for our co urt t o be vestedNo. 1-09- 1561

4

wit h jurisd ictio n, a not ice o f app eal must be filed wit hin 30 d ays o f the ent ry o f the final j udg ment in the trial court , or, if

a tim el y posttrial motion di

rected against the judgm

ent has b een f

il ed, withi n 30 day s af ter t he en try of the order dis

posin g of that motion. See also Ill . S. Ct. R. 301 (eff . Feb. 1, 1994). Rel atedly , section 2-1202(c) of the Il li nois Code of Ci

vi l Procedure (Code) (73 5 IL CS 5/2 -12 02( c) (W es t 200 8)) govern s th e ti me re qui rem en ts a ppl i ca bl e to the f i l i ng of post trial m

ot ions. Section 2-1202( c) stat es: "Po st [ ] t rial mot ions mus t be filed wit hin 30 d ays aft er t he ent ry o f judgment or t he di sch arge of the j ury, i f

no verdi ct i s rea ched, or wi

thi n a ny f urthe r tim e the court ma y a ll ow withi n the 30 day

s or any extensi ons thereof." 735 ILCS 5/2-1202(c) (We st 2008 ). Ou rco ur t ha s s pe cific ally a nd r ep ea t ed ly mad e c lea rt ha t t he lan gu ag e o f se ct io n 2
- 12 02 ( c) is pl ai n a nd unam bi guous- -"i f the tri al cou rt ex ten dsthe ti me i n w hi ch to f i l e a pos ttri al moti on bey ond the in itial 30-day peri

od, t hat order o f ti

me extensi on mus t be entered wi

thin the 30-day period or wi

thi n a ny period of ex ten si on a l rea dy gi ve n. In othe r wor ds , af ter th e 3 0-day period has ex pired, or the extended peri od of tim e has ex pired, wi thout the entry of

a new order setting a new deadli

ne, the tr ial

cour t loses jurisdi

ction over t he case." Trentman , 333 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 442. A nd , once the tri al cou rt lose s j urisd

i cti on, an y su bs eq uent or ders en tere d, i nc l udi ng a n oti ceof appeal whi ch would vest j urisdi

ction wi th our co urt, ar e not via

ble. See Trentman , 333 Ill . App. 3d at 44 4; a

ccord In re Estate of Kunsch , 342 Il l . Ap p. 3d 55 2, 559 ( 2003) . A pr ime example o f the op er at ion o f sect ion 2 -1 202 (c ), and it s ap plicability to t he inst ant cau se, is found in Trentman . There , th e tri al cou rt en tere d j udg

men t on a j ury ve rdi ct i n f av or ofNo. 1-09- 1561

5

t he de fendant s and aga inst t he plaint iff in a medical malpra ct ice ac t ion. Fo llowing t his, t he pla in tif f wen t o n to file

some 13 m

ot ions for an ex tension of tim

e to fil e a postt rial

motion. See Trentman , 333 Ill . App. 3d at 441. Of these, the f irst ni ne were ti me ly , and properly

, fi le d. See Trentman , 3 33 I ll. App. 3d a t 443 . I n gr ant ing t he ninth e xt ensio n, t he t rial co ur t gave t he plaint iff unt il Januar y 4, 2 000 , t o file his po st t rial mot ion o r o bt ain ano t her ext ensio n. While t he pla in tif f f il ed a m ot ion f or (his tenth) ex

tension on January

3, bef ore t he deadl

in e, the order grantin g this was not entered until

January 5, after the deadl

in e. See Trentman , 333 Ill . App. 3d at 44 1, 44 3. T he t r ial c o ur t we nt o n t o ad dr es s a nd gr an t su bs eq ue nt ex t en sio ns an d, ev en t ua lly, the p l ai ntif f f i l ed a n otice of a ppea l . On ap pea l, t he r eviewing c ou rt 's jurisd ictio n ove r t he mat t er was que st ioned . C iting t he "evi dent and ex

act" lan guage of section 2-1202(c), t he Trentman cou rt f oun d th at i t h ad to di sm i ss th e app eal . Trentman , 333 Ill . App. 3d at 443. The Trentman court noted the princi ple s of secti on 2-1202(c), namel y, that i f a party

cann ot fi le hi s postt rial

motion wi

thin the origi nal 30- day pe rio d, he must obt ain an ext ensio n fro m the t rial co ur t wit hin that 30- day pe rio d, and if he does not, t he trial

court loses jurisdi

ction to all

ow any further ex

tensions. See Trentman , 33 3 I ll. App. 3d at 443. The Trentman co ur t emphas ized t hat t he ke y to sec t ion 2 -1 202 (c ) is t hat t he pa rty se ek i n g th e extensi on of ti me i n wh i ch to f i l e h i s p ost trial moti on m us t obtain an d secure this extensi on prior to t he ex

piration of the previ

ously extended deadl

in e. See Trentman , 33 3 I ll. App. 3d at 443. In ot her words, pursuant to section 2-1202(c), "both the request and the order must occur before t he deadli ne." Trentman , 33 3 I ll. A pp . 3d at 44 4. While t he pla int iff in Trentman filed fo rhis t en t h e xt en sio n o f t ime o n Ja nu ar y 3, be fo r e t he en d o f t he pr ev io us lyNo. 1-09- 1561

6

extended deadl

in e of Jan uary 4, h e di d not o btain

and secure that tenth ex

tension until

January 5, after the deadl

in e. Thus, becaus e the Janua ry 4 deadl in e passed wi

th no order entered, t he trial court l ost j uri sdi

cti on as of that date a

nd a l l the orde rs i t entere d sub seq

uen t to Janua ry 4 were nul l a nd voi d. See Trentman , 333 Ill . App. 3d at 444. This, i n turn, rendered the pl

ai ntif f' s notice of a ppe al, filed mor e t han six mont hs aft er t his dea dline, u nt imely and d ivest ed t he r eviewing court of j urisdi

ction over hi

s appeal . See Trentman , 33 3 Il l . A pp. 3d a t 444 ; s eealso Portock v. Freeman , 5 3 I ll. App. 3d 1 027 , 1 030 (1 977 ) ( no ju risdict ion exist ed in r eviewing c ou rt wher e t he trial court allowed the pl

ai ntif f an extensi on of tim e to fil e hi s postt rial

motion to Novemb er 5, but the pla in tif f di d not file the motion n

or did he obtai

n an ot her extensi on by

that date; in stead, tr ia

l co urt lost jurisdictio n and no tice o f appea l was not timely fil ed) ; Kw ak v. St. Anthony De Padua Hospital , 54 Ill . App. 3d 719, 724 (1977) (t rial court la cked j urisdi

ction an d appeal dis mi ssed where, even

though the pla

in tif f f il ed her m ot ion f or extensi on of tim

e wi thin the in itial 30-day po st t r ial p er io d, sh e d id

no t r ec eiv e a n e xt en sio n be fo r e t he ex pi r at io n o f t ha t pe r io d; ac co r di ng ly, her posttr ia

l m ot ions fi le d thereafter were a nul

li ty an d her notice of

appeal could n ot confer j uri sdi cti on on r evi ewi ng c ourt due to i

ts un tim el i ne ss). Trentman (a nd it s pr og eny) wa s re affirmed in Kunsch , an appe al also d i sm i ss ed f or lac k of jurisd ictio n. I n Kunsch , a s in Trentman , a jury re t ur ned a ver dict in favor of t he de fendant s, a nd t he t rial co ur t ent er ed jud gment on t he ver dict on M ar ch 19 , 2 002 . O n Apr il 18, 2 002 , w ithin t he in itial 30-day posttrial

period outli

ned i n section 2-1202(c), t he pl ai ntif f f il ed a m ot ion f or an extensi on of tim e to fil e hi s postt rial

motion. See Kunsch , 3 42 I ll. App. 3d a t 553 . H ow ever , t he t r ial c o ur t did no t allo w h is mo t io n u nt il Ma y 1, 20 02 , an d, t he r efo r e, t he pla int iff faile d t o o bt ainNo. 1-09- 1561

7

and secure the e

xtensi on bef ore t he statuto ry deadl

in e. See Kunsch , 3 42 I ll. App. 3d a t 553 . T he plai ntif f ev en tuall y f i l ed a p osttria

l motion , whi ch

wasden i ed, an d then a noti ce of appe al . The Kunsch court , as the Trentman cou rt, d ec l ared th at i t wa s wi th out j uri sd

i cti on to consider the plai

ntif f' s appeal because he f ai le d to in itiate it by fi li ng a tim el y n ot ic e of appeal . See Kunsch , 3 42 I ll. App. 3d a t 553 , 5 59. Tu rning t o s ect ion 2 -1 202 (c ), it, t oo , no t ed t he se ct ion's clear pr inciples, na mely, tha t if the t rial co ur t ext ends t he t ime for filing a po st t rial mot ion beyo nd the in itial 30-day peri

od foll owing i ts entry of j udgme

nt, that o rder must be e

ntered withi

n the 30- day period or withi

n an y pe riod of ex tension al ready gi ven ; if, i nstead, the 30-day

period expi

res wit hou t t he ent ry o f a new o rd er set t ing a new dea dline, t he t rial co ur t lose s jurisd ictio n ove r t he case. See Kunsch , 342 Ill . App. 3d at 554. Again, the Kunsch co ur t re iter at ed t he r equ irement that bo th the req uest for t he extension and the tr ial cour t's or der grant in

g the extension m

ust occur before the operative de adlin e. See Kunsch , 342 I ll . App. 3d at 554. Accor din gly , because t he t rial co ur t 's May 1 o rd er giving t he plaint iff an ext ensio n of t ime was g ra nt ed w ell beyond t he 30-day peri

od foll owing the entry of judgm ent on March 19, even though the pl ai ntif f h ad requested it wi

thin that deadli

ne (Apri l 18), section 2-1202(c) operat ed to pr ecl ude the trial co ur t 's jurisd ictio n as o f April 19, nullif ied it s su bseq uent or der s, a nd r ende re d t he plaint iff 's notice of appe al

untim el y. See Kunsch , 34 2 Il

l . A pp. 3d a t 555 ; s eealso Low

enthal v. McDonald

, 367Ill . A pp. 3d 9 19, 923 (20 06)(wh ere the pl ai nti f f "f ai l ed to ei the r f i l e h er p osttri al moti on or obtain [(em

phas i s i n or i gi na l)] a n e xte ns i on to f i l e the p osttri

al moti on" wi

thi n th e 3 0-day period gr ant ed by t he t rial co ur t , t he t rial co ur t lacke d jur isdict ion t o e nt er t ain her s ubse que nt mot ions and the revi ewi ng c ourt coul d not ad

dres s ap peal ).No. 1-09- 1561

1 We no t e fo r t he r eco rd t hat t he se ct ion 2 -1 202 (c ) vio latio n was re pea t ed d ur ing Wilson's request for a third ex

tension of tim

e to fil e hi s postt rial

motion. That i s, on Decem ber 29, 2008, the tri al court ex tended W i l son' s ti me to fi l e hi s posttrial

motion unti l Feb ruary 2, 2009 ; h

owever, ag ai n, W i l son di d n ot f i l e a pos ttri al moti on, an

d he f ai l ed to se cu re a nd obta i n a n e xte ns i on of tim e to do so until

February 5, 2009, after the newl

y e xtended deadl

in e. 8 Trentman and Kunsch , a long wit h Kw ak, Portock

and Low enthal , make our r

uli ng h ere cl ea r. Th e tri al cou rt en tere d a f i na l j udg men t on th e j ury 's ve rdi ct agai ns t W i l son an d f or defen dants on Septemb er 4, 2008. Withi n section 2-1202(c)'s 30-day tim e period, Wi

ls on fi le d a mot ion fo r e xt ensio n of t ime to fil e his po st t rial mot ion. The co ur t t imely gr ant ed t his and g ave hi m un ti l De cem be r 19 , 20 08, to f

i l e h i s p osttri al moti on. W i l son

the n f i l ed a s ec ond moti on f or extensi on of tim e on Decem

ber 18, 2008, withi

n the n ewl y e xtended deadl

in e set by the trial co ur t . H ow ever , t hat mot ion wa s no t gr ant ed u nt il December 29, 200 8, well beyond t he o pe r at ive De ce mbe r19 , 20 08 , da t e. T he r ec o r d r efle ct s, t he n, t ha t wh ile Wils o n t imely file d h is mo t io n fo rex t en sio n o f t ime, he did no t se cu r e a nd o bt ain t ha t ex t en sio n w it hin t he pr ev io us ly ext ende d de adline. In o t her wo rd s, a fte r D ece mber 1 9, 200 8, pas sed wit h no o rd er ent er ed, t he t rial co ur t lost jurisd ictio n ove r Wilson's cau se, and a ll ord er s ent er ed by t he t rial co ur t subs equ ent to Decem ber 19, 2008 ( i.e. , i

ts D ec em be r 29 orde r gran ti ng W i l son 's se con d m oti on f or ex ten si on t o Fe br ua ry 2, an d i t s F eb rua ry 5 o r de rgr an t ing his t hir d m o t io n fo rex t en sio n t o Fe br ua ry 9 1 ), exceeded the

trial court 's j urisdi

ction. In turn, hi s postt rial motion f il ed on Feb ruary 9, 2009, was a n ul lit y. I n he rr ep ly br ief o n app ea l, pla int iff ar gu es t ha t jur isd ict io n is n o t , no rsho uld it be , lo st inNo. 1-09- 1561

9

ou r c ou rt for t wo re aso ns. F irst , she asse rt s t hat t he no t ion t hat t rial co ur t s "must re ly solely on" se ct io n 2
- 12 02 ( c) t o de t er mine ju r isd ict io n is " wr o ng [ ] " a nd in d ire ct co nt r ad ict io n t o t he ir au t ho r it y t o co nt r o l t he ir o wn do ck et s. Alt er na t ive ly, s he insis t s t ha t "d efe nd an t s' c o nd uc t " in t his ca us e r ev es t ed t he t r ial c o ur t wit h ju r isd ict io n t o rule o n Wils o n's po st t r ial mo t io n a nd , t hu s, his noti ce of appe al wastim el y f i l ed. However, nei

ther of pl ai

ntif f' s argum ents saves thi s appeal . Fi

rst, whil e pl ai ntif f is correct that t rial cour ts are empower ed to contr ol their docket s ( Sander v. Dow Chemical Co. , 166 Ill . 2d 48, 65 (1995)), t he f

act remai ns, as we n

ot ed at the out set of our decisi on, that o ur state's rules an d p roc ed ur es re ga rdi n g l eg al proce ed i n gsare n ot m ere s ug ge sti on s b ut, i n ste ad , a rere qui re d to be f oll owed by all pa rties to a cause of acti on in our co urts. See Trentman , 333 Ill . App. 3d at 441 (Illi nois' set o f rules and procedu res bin d all legal pro ceedings com

men ced in i ts boundaries; t he se rule s a r e " no t as pir at io na l in na t ur e" bu t "a r e me an t t o be fo llo we d b y all w ho se ek jus t ice in the court system"). This i ncl udes both Rule 303(a)(1) stat in g that a notice of appeal

mus t be fi le d wit hin 30 d ays aft er t he ent ry o f the or der dispo sing o f the last pend ing po st t rial mot ion, and section 2-1202(c) of the Code statin g that t he trial

court 's order extendi

ng the tim

e for f il in g a pos ttri al moti on m

us t be en tere d w i thi n th e 3 0-day pos ttri al period or wi

thi n a ny period of extensi on al ready gi ven . See Kunsch , 3 42 I ll. App. 3d a t 553 -5 4 ( t hese ru les ar e manda t or y and are the basis for a ppellat e jurisdict ion); Trentman , 33 3 Il l . A pp. 3d a t 441 -42(lan

gua geof se cti on 2- 120 2( c) "is qu ite p lain and se ems t o be free of a mbiguity") . I t is the se r ules t hat go ver n t he in stant cause and operate to prohib it our juri sdi ction over thi s appeal . See Trentman , 33 3 I ll. App. 3d at 444 (declari

ng the pl ai ntif f' s argum ent that section 2-1202(c) should not be applie dNo. 1-09- 1561

10

"hard an d fas t" "lack[s ] logic" i

n the context of posttr ia

l m ot ion practice becaus e the tim e fram es ar e jur isdict ional; "[ i]f the t ime frame o f an ext ensio n pas ses, t he t rial co ur t lose s its jurisd ictio n" and "is n ot abl e to gran t any f urthe r ex tens i ons" ). Moreover, plai

ntif f' s argum ent concerni

ng reves tment also fai

ls . She i nsists that "d efe nd an t s' c o nd uc t " d emo nst r at ed ac t ive pa r t icip at io n o n t he ir p ar t wh ich , in t ur n, ke pt t his ca us e a l i v e. Fr om wh at w e c an gl ea n f rom h er repl y b rief , the c on duct sh e s eem

i n gl y re f er s to i n cl udes de f en da n ts' f ai l ur e to o b j ect to j uri sd

i cti on du ri n g p ost trial moti on pr acti ce su b se qu en t to Decem ber 19, 2008, their f

il in g of a response to plai

ntif f' s postt rial

motion, an

d their al le ged appearance at a hearin

g in the trial court on pla

in tif f' s m ot ion to fi le a supplem

ental record in our court . Plai

ntif f' s argum ent is unsupported for several

reasons. Fi

rst, and forem

ost, we note that pl ai n ti f f f ai l s to prov i de

an y re cord c i tati on to h er al l eg ati on s th at def en da n ts n ev er ob j ected to Wi lson' s motions for extension of tim e, as well as any recor d citation to the defendants' response t o t he po st t r ial mo t io n Wils o n e ve nt ua lly filed . Wit ho ut su ch r ec o r d s up po r t , we ca nno t as su me her al le gations are true. See Coleman v. Akpakpan , 40 2 Ill. App. 3d 8 22, 824 (20 10) ; American States Insurance Co. v. CFM Cons truction Co. , 39 8 I l l . A pp . 3d 99 4, 1 00 1 ( 20 10 ) (f

ai l ur e to c i te recor d results in f

orfeiture o f argumen

t o n appeal). Next, even were we t o assume these alle ga t io ns ar e t rue , "a pp ella t e ju r isd ict io n c an no t be co nfe rr ed by laches , ag ree men t, wa i ve r or estopp el," an

d " [t]h i s i n cl udes th e f ai l ur e of on e p ar ty ** * to c al

l th e a pp el l ate cou rt' s a tten ti on to a juri sdictional

defect." Bernstein & Grazian, P.C. v. Grazian & V olpe, P. C. , 402 Ill . App. 3d 961 , 9 71 ( 201 0) (r ega rd less o f par t y's act ion o r inact ion, app eal sho uld neve r ha ve bee n hear d and i t wa s " i nc um be nt u pon the j us ti ceof thi s c ourt" to di sm

i ss appe al ); se e al so Physicians Insur anceNo. 1-09- 1561

11

Exchange v. Jennings , 31 6 Ill. App. 3d 4 43, 453 (20 00) ; Currie v. Lao , 148 Ill . 2d 151, 157 (19 92) . A cc ordi

ngl y , de f en da nts ' f ai l ure to obj ec t he

re i s i rre l evan t--re ga rdl es s of the i r acti on or inact ion in bringing a t t ent ion t o t he jur isdict ional issu e, t he r ules a t play, w hich we ha ve thorough l y di scu sse d ab ove, m

andate that we di

sm i ss th e i nstant ap peal . Fu rth er, the rev es tmen t doc tri ne i s a na rrow one ; i t appl i esonl y when the pa rti esto a ca us e acti ve l y pa rtici pa te w i thou t obj ec ti on i

n proce edi

ng s th at a re i nc ons i stent w

i th th e m eri ts of the prior j udgme

nt. See Low

enthal , 367 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 924; acc ordWierzbicki v. Gleas on , 388 I ll. A pp . 3d 92 1, 92 7- 28 ( 20 09 ) . Co nd uc t wh ich is inc o nsis t en t is a ny w hic h c an be fair ly construed as

an i ndi cation tha t the pa rtie s do n ot vi ew the order e

ntere d asf

i na l and bi ndi ng. AdEx, Inc. v. City of

Chicago , 20 7 I ll. A pp . 3d 16 3, 17 7 ( 19 90 ) . T he ke y t o t his d o ct r ine is t ha t t his conduct amounts to active partici pation, not mere conse

nt. See Low

enthal , 367 Ill . App. 3d at 92 5. Ev en if t he r eve st ment do ct rine co uld be c o nsid er ed her ein, we ca nno t sa y, a s p laint iff wo uld have us, t hat t he pa rt ies her e ac t ively part icipat ed in pr oc eed ings inco nsist ent wit h t he
meri ts of the tri al cou rt' s j udg men t on th e j ury 's ve rdi ct, s o tha t the y were a cti ng asi f i t were n ot binding. T he t rial co ur t lost jurisd ictio n ove r Wilson's app eal o n Dec ember 1 9, 200 8. Fo llowing t hat dat e, Wilson co nt inued t o file mot ions fo r e xt ensio n of t ime to fil e his po st t rial mot ion, and then eventuall

y f il ed that post trial m

ot ion i n February

2009. T he record reflects t hat defendants, meanwhile, did no t hing o t her t han se ek a n ext ensio n of t ime to fil e t heir r esp ons e t o Wilso n's po st t rial mot ion. Acco rd ingly, it wa s no t as if eithe r side igno re d t he t rial co ur t 's judg ment o n t he j ur y' s v erdi ct a n d s tar ted to retry th i s c as e. To th

e c on tra ry, the p ost

trial moti on de al t wi th whether the j udgme

nt should be set asi

de; W il son i nsisted that it should, wh

il e defe ndan ts arguedNo. 1-09- 1561

12

that it shoul d not. Under these ci rcumstances, revestm

ent did n ot occur. See Wierzbicki , 38 8 I ll. A pp . 3d at 9 30 -3 1 (re v estmen

t di d n ot ap pl y , s i n ce pa rty ' s c on duct w as

n ot i n con siste n t wi th judgm ent and di d not amount to active partici pation) (ci

ting Sears v. Sears , 85 Ill . 2d 253, 259-60 (1981) (part ies di

d not im ply by their conduct t hat judgmen t should be set aside and, thus, revestm en t doctrin e di d not ap pl y )). Fina lly, w e mu st no t e t he we ll-e st ab lishe d p r inc iple s t ha t a p ar t y ca n c ha lleng e a vo id o r de rat an y t ime a nd t ha t we , as t he r ev iew ing co ur t , ha ve a d ut y t o r efu se t o en t er t ain vo id orders w hen w e hav e kn

owl edge of them, regar

dless of w hen the i ssue of

thei r va l i di ty was ra i sed . See, e.g. , Wierzbicki , 388 Ill . App. 3d at 931 (reviewi ng courts must expun

ge from their records void a cts). It is cl ear that section 2-1202(c) of the Code operated in the i nstant cause to render Wi ls on's posttrial

motion a n

ull ity and that, under Rule 303(a)(1), his n ot ic e of appeal

was unt imely . T o d o a nything o t her t han dismiss t he inst ant app eal pu rsu ant t o t hese ru les wo uld be i na ppropri ate. In sum , the undi sputable fac

ts remai n. Af ter Wil son tim el y obtai ned (on October 6, 2008) his ini t ial exte nsion o f time t o file a p os t t rial mot ion fo llowing t he t rial co ur t 's ent ry o f judgment o n t he jur y's v er dic t , he ha d u nt il De ce mbe r19 , 20 08 , t o eit he rfile a po st t r ial mo t io n o ro bt ain another ext ension of time i n whi ch to fil e a post trial m

ot ion. He fai

led to sat isf

y ei ther o f these alte rna t ives. T her efo re , se ct ion 2 -1 202 (c ) o per at ed t o p re clude t he t rial co ur t fro m later gr ant ing hi s req ue st f or a s ec ond

(an d th i rd) ex ten si on of ti me to f i l e h i s p osttri al moti on a nd f rom ev en tuall y den y i ng h i s posttrial

motion . See, e.g. , Kunsch , 3 42 I ll. App. 3d a t 554 -5 5 ( citing Trentman , 333 Ill . App. 3d at 443, and Kw ak 54Il l . A pp . 3d at 7 24 ) (" wh

en a tr i al cou rt f ai l s toNo. 1-09- 1561

13

al l ow a n e xte ns i on of ti me to f i l e a pos ttri al moti on w

i thi n th e i ni ti al 30- da y period [or su bse qu ent ly wit hin a n ew ly ext end ed de ad line] , t her e is n o jur isd ict io n t o lat er gr ant a p laint iff additional time or to consider a post trial m ot ion attacking the fi

nal judgm ent"). With these nu llit ies , Wilso n's no t ice o f ap pe al file d o n Ju ne 17 , 20 09 , wa s, cle ar ly, u nt imely, an d w e s imply do not ha ve j uri sdi cti on to cons i der pl

ai ntif f 's appe al . CONCLUSION Ac co r din gly, fo rall t he fo r eg o ing r ea so ns, we dis miss t he inst an t ap pe al. Appeal dis mi ssed.