Court Opinion

ID: 9716593
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:45:26.601221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:47.094587
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE INGLIS, dissenting: While I acknowledge the majority is following the recent precedent of Weisenburn v. Smith (1991), 214 Ill. App. 3d 160,1 respectfully dissent. The supreme court pursuant to its rule-making authority has adopted mandatory arbitration. (134 Ill. 2d R. 86.) This forward-looking, progressive approach to dispute resolution is an important and significant step in reducing court backlog and delay. Elinois courts have a duty to encourage programs mandated by the supreme court. Parties should not be allowed to simply ignore the supreme court rules. Defendant should have appeared after having been properly served with a notice to produce and appear pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 237 (134 Ill. 2d R. 237). To overlook this important rule in mandatory arbitration depreciates the importance of this form of alternate dispute resolution and weakens an otherwise legitimate and important program whose time has come. Rules adopted by the supreme court are rules of procedure and not suggestions. (People v. Wilk (1988), 124 Ill. 2d 93, 103.) Although Wilk involves a criminal matter, I believe that supreme court rules are not suggestions in court-mandated arbitration. Sanctions are properly applied for violation of Supreme Court Rule 237. The rejection of an award pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 93 is an entirely separate question from a violation of Supreme Court Rule 237. Defendant may have preserved his right to reject the award under Supreme Court Rule 93(a) by the appearance of his attorney, but, in my opinion, it was a reasonable sanction on him to lose the right for violating Supreme Court Rule 237. A party has the right to present the best case possible and to use Supreme Court Rule 237 if needed. That right should not be taken away by another party’s efforts to frustrate mandatory arbitration. The appellate court should support trial judges who are endeavoring to properly control mandatory arbitration, a needed and important weapon in the court’s arsenal against delay and backlog. The impact of the majority’s position clearly undermines mandatory arbitration. I would affirm the trial court.