Opinion
4-21-0167
12-03-2021
In re ESTATE OF HILE JACKSON, Deceased v. First Financial Bank, Respondent-Appellee. Clarence Jackson, Petitioner-Appellant,
This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Vermilion County No. 20P194, Honorable Mark S. Goodwin, Judge Presiding.
Presiding Justice Knecht and Justice Cavanagh concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
STEIGMANN, JUSTICE.
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court dismissed this appeal for the reason that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction because a postjudgment motion remained pending in the trial court.
¶ 2 In February 2021, the trial court dismissed the probate case opened by petitioner, Clarence Jackson, for the estate of his brother, Hile Jackson, finding a competing probate proceeding had been opened prior to Clarence's filing his petition for probate. Clarence appeals, alleging various claims of fraud and misconduct. We conclude this court lacks jurisdiction because a postjudgment motion remains pending in the trial court.
¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 4 On November 3, 2020, Hile died.
¶ 5 On November 9, 2020, Clarence, Hile's brother and petitioner in this case, sent letters to First Financial Bank and Larry Hopson informing them of Hile's death. Clarence attached to the letters a copy of a purported last will and testament signed by Hile dated April 25, 2015.
¶ 6 On November 13, 2020, Hopson filed a petition for probate of Hile's estate and an affidavit of heirship as Hile's sole heir. The trial court opened a probate case, case No. 20-P-175, and appointed First Financial as independent administrator.
¶ 7 In December 2020, Clarence filed a petition for probate, affidavit of heirship, and request for appointment as executor for Hile's estate. Clarence also submitted the April 2015 will. The trial court opened a probate case, case No. 20-P-194, and appointed Clarence as independent executor.
¶ 8 In February 2021, First Financial filed a motion to dismiss Clarence's probate action, arguing there was already an action pending for the administration of Hile's estate. First Financial attached to the motion to dismiss a copy of Hopson's petition for letters of administration, a copy of a March 2016 guardianship order appointing First Financial as guardian of Hile's estate, and the letters First Financial received from Clarence after Hile died. First Financial later filed a supplemental motion to dismiss, adding allegations that the April 2015 will was void.
¶ 9 In his response opposing the motion to dismiss, Clarence argued (1) First Financial had no standing to file "any action in this matter," (2) Hopson did not meet the "presumption test" as Hile's heir, and (3) various allegations of fraud and wrongful death.
¶ 10 Later in February 2021, the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to dismiss. Without argument, the court acknowledged the "mess" created by its error of allowing two parallel probate actions for one decedent. The court vacated the orders entered in case No. 20-P-194 and dismissed the proceeding, instructing the parties, "All matters pertaining to the Hile Jackson estate will be addressed in 20[-]P[-] 175." Clarence then argued he lacked proper notice. The court informed Clarence, as follows:
"What I'm doing is correcting an error that this Court made today, which was the fact that I opened an estate twice, which is not how probate proceedings are handled. Okay? So any issues that you have, [Clarence], with respect to your brother's estate or any handling of that, needs to be [taken] up in 20[-]P[-] 175, which is an existing probate estate." ¶ 11 On March 2, 2021, Clarence filed a motion to reconsider "with damages," asking the trial court to reinstate his case and grant him "fair and equitable relief for the wrong [First Financial and their attorneys] caused in this case." Clarence filed an amended motion on March 11, 2021. Clarence filed a notice of appeal on March 17, 2021. The record does not contain an order disposing of either Clarence's March 2, 2021, motion or his amended motion of March 11, 2021.
¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 13 As an initial matter, we note First Financial has not filed a brief in this appeal. However, we need not discuss how to proceed without an appellee brief. We do not have jurisdiction to entertain Clarence's appeal because postjudgment motions remain pending in the trial court. See Ill. S.Ct. R. 303(a)(2) (eff. July 1, 2017).
¶ 14" [A] reviewing court has an independent duty to sua sponte consider questions of jurisdiction." People v. Vari, 2016 IL App (3d) 140278, ¶ 7, 48 N.E.3d 265. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303 (eff. July 1, 2017) sets forth the general jurisdictional prerequisites for civil appeals. Rule 303(a) (2) states, in relevant part, "When a timely postjudgment motion has been filed by any party *** a notice of appeal filed before the entry of the order disposing of the last pending postjudgment motion *** becomes effective when the order disposing of said motion *** is entered." Ill. S.Ct. R. 303(a)(2) (eff. July 1, 2017).
¶ 15 In this case, the trial court entered judgment dismissing case No. 20-P-194 on February 23, 2021. On March 2, 2021, Clarence timely filed a motion to reconsider "with damages," and an amended motion on March 11, 2021. On March 17, 2021, Clarence filed a notice of appeal. A review of the common-law record, including the docket entries contained therein, fails to show that the trial court ruled on Clarence's timely filed postjudgment motion.
¶ 16 In his notice of appeal, Clarence refers to a judgment entered on March 16, 2021. Our review of the record reveals no such order. We take judicial notice of the electronic docket for this case and case No. 20-P-175 and note no such order is documented in either case. See People v. Alvarez-Garcia, 395 Ill.App.3d 719, 726-27, 936 N.E.2d 588, 595 (2009) (stating the appellate court may take judicial notice of records kept by Illinois courts).
¶ 17 It is the appellant's duty to provide the reviewing court with a sufficiently complete record. Foutch v. O'Bryant, 99 Ill.2d 389, 391, 459 N.E.2d 958, 959 (1984). Because the record contains no such order, we presume the trial court did not enter an order related to Clarence's motion to reconsider. Accordingly, Clarence's notice of appeal is premature, and this court lacks jurisdiction of his appeal.
¶ 18 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 19 For the reasons stated, we dismiss the appeal.
¶ 20 Appeal dismissed.