# Kingbrook, Inc. v. Pupurs

> Illinois Supreme Court · October 18, 2002 · 202 Ill. 2d 24

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710398

## Case

- **Full name:** KINGBROOK, INC., Appellant, v. JOHN A. PUPURS Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 18, 2002
- **Citations:** 202 Ill. 2d 24; 269 Ill. Dec. 13; 779 N.E.2d 867; 2002 Ill. LEXIS 940
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Garman
- **Judges:** Freeman, Rarick, Garman, Kilbride
- **Cited by:** 43 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710398

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that single line motion for reconsideration qualified as post-trial motion under section 2-1203(a) and reversing appellate court order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction
- noting that, even after a court has otherwise lost jurisdiction, it may correct an order nunc pro tunc when the record clearly shows an error in the form of the original judgment

## Opinion text

JUSTICE GARMAN, specially concurring:
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the motion in question was permissible under the current language of section 2 — 1203(a). I write separately to express serious concerns regarding the practical effects of the statute in its current form.
As the majority states, section 2 — 1203(a) of the Code makes mention of the contents of any post-judgment motion. As such, the majority correctly concludes that the plain language of the Code provides no basis for a specificity requirement. However, the current requirements raise the specter that a motion need be nothing more than an empty shell in order to be effective. Permitting skeletal motions invites sloppiness and will only create more confusion for reviewing courts. A motion that is devoid of detail does not meaningfully inform the trial court, or reviewing courts, of what objections or points have been raised. A party could, theoretically, file a motion that says nothing more than, “We request a do over.”
Furthermore, it is not difficult to envision abuse of the requirements as currently written. The lack of a specificity requirement encourages spurious pleadings or blatant attempts to extend the time for leave to appeal through the filing of an empty, meaningless motion to reconsider.
While I agree with the majority that the filer of a motion should not have to guess how much detail is enough (202 Ill. 2d at 33), there is a difference between insufficient detail and no detail at all. I believe that a motion containing absolutely no identification and articulation of objections or points does not contribute to fair and informed decisionmaking. The law demands some specificity to be administered effectively and consistently. To that end, I sincerely hope that the legislature addresses the lack of any content requirements for motions to reconsider in nonjury cases.
JUSTICE KILBRIDE joins in this special concurrence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710398. Public record. Not legal advice.