Court Opinion

ID: 9737030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:13:26.872996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:56.014790
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: The trial court did exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal. The trial court did, as the majority states, indicate that if it had been a motion for summary judgment it would follow Gibellina and not allow a motion for voluntary dismissal. Although Gibellina does not stand for the proposition stated by the trial court, the trial court also exercised its discretion in granting the motion for voluntary dismissal. In addition to the statements of the trial judge referred to in the majority’s decision, the trial court also stated: “The Court finds that the Motion for Judgment is not a Motion for Summary Judgment as was the case in the causes before the Court in Gibellina. The Court exercises its discretion to decline to hear the Motion for Judgment prior to the Plaintiffs Motion for Voluntary Dismissal. The Court finds that Gibellina, which was a Summary Judgment case, does not mandate that the Court must proceed to hearing on such Motion but allows the trial court to hear such a Motion if in the Court’s discretion it is appropriate. The Court then proceeded to the hearing on the Motion for Voluntary Dismissal.” (Emphasis added.) Contrary to the majority’s position, I do not believe Queen is a basis for overturning the trial court in this case. In Queen, the trial court with respect to a jury question stated: “I cannot have any testimony of any witnesses read to you.” (Queen, 56 Ill. 2d at 565, 310 N.E.2d at 169.) The supreme court in Queen found that the trial court’s statement “convinces us it was a declaration that the court was without discretion.” (Queen, 56 Ill. 2d at 566, 310 N.E.2d at 169.) Queen refers to People v. Pierce (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 361, 308 N.E.2d 577, decided the same year, similar to the facts in Queen. In Pierce, the supreme court found there was an exercise of discretion. In this case, the trial court did indicate that it was exercising its discretion. This court should affirm the trial court. The reason cited by the trial court for its decision, as set forth by the majority, does not require this court to reverse. As stated in In re Marriage of McFarlane (1987), 160 Ill. App. 3d 721, 726, 513 N.E.2d 1146, 1149: “It is well settled that a reviewing court is not bound by the reasons given by the trial court for its judgment. *** The reasons given by a trial court for an order, or the findings on which an order is based, are not material if the order is correct.” The trial court did not need to give reasons for its ruling. That the stated reason may have been incorrect is immaterial in this case. The record indicates that the trial court did exercise its discretion and should be affirmed.