The complaint also presented the court with a definite, concrete dispute, as opposed to a hypothetical or moot dispute. Accordingly, the complaint presented a justiciable matter to the court, and the court possessed valid subject matter jurisdiction. ¶ 45 We note that the City has relied on Ligon v. Williams, 264 Ill. App. 3d 701 (1994), which addressed whether a court has jurisdiction to adjudicate an issue when no pleading has placed that issue before the court. In Ligon, the petitioner-mother filed a petition under the Parentage Act to have the respondent declared to be the father of her child and to order respondent to pay child support.
Although he contends that the notice he received was not adequate, he cites no authority for the proposition that the amount of notice that he did have, that is, "less than a week," is not sufficient. Ultimately, contrary to respondent's assertion on appeal, he did have notice that the issue of custody would be before the court at the April hearing when he had previous notice of the petitioner's pro se petition for sole custody and a visitation schedule. He did not request a continuance at the April hearing. ¶ 23 This court is unpersuaded by respondent's reliance upon Ligon v. Williams, 264 Ill. App. 3d 701 (1994), as in that case, neither party had notice that the issue of custody would be before the court. There, neither party filed a petition relating to custody; rather, the trial court raised the issue of custody sua sponte and then entered an order switching custody of the minor from one parent to the other.
This is significantly different from when a court grants relief that has not been requested in the petition. See Ligon v. Williams, 264 Ill. App. 3d 701, 707 (1994). Because the complaint frames the nature of the case and circumscribes the relief requested, a court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant relief not requested in the complaint simply because it could have granted such relief if it had been requested.
This is significantly different from when a court grants relief that has not been requested in the petition. See Ligon v. Williams, 264 Ill. App. 3d 701, 707 (1994). Because the complaint frames the nature of the case and circumscribes the relief requested, a court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant relief not requested in the complaint simply because it could have granted such relief if it had been requested.
The filing of a complaint or petition operates to invoke the court's authority to exercise its jurisdiction. Ligon v. Williams, 264 Ill. App.3d 701, 707 (1994); see also 735 ILCS 5/2-201 (West 1992) ("Every action, unless otherwise expressly provided by statute, shall be commenced by the filing of a complaint"). The purpose of the pleadings is to frame the issue or issues for the court and set forth the relief the court is empowered to order.
¶ 65 However, the victim's complete failure to file a petition, or the State's failure to file one at her request, means that no claim whatsoever has been made; this fails to invoke the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction. Belleville Toyota, 199 Ill.2d at 335 (citing Ligon v. Williams, 264 Ill.App.3d 701, 707 (1994)); see People ex rel. Graf v. Village of Lake Bluff, 206 Ill.2d 541, 554 (2003) ("Once a justiciable matter is properly submitted, a court has the power to decide rightly or wrongly the issues properly before it." (Emphasis added.)).
¶ 22 With limited exceptions, circuit courts have " 'original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters.' " Ligon v. Williams, 264 Ill. App. 3d 701, 707, 637 N.E.2d 633, 638 (1994) (quoting Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 9). A "justiciable matter" is "a controversy appropriate for review by the court, in that it is definite and concrete, as opposed to hypothetical or moot, touching upon the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests." Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 325, 335, 770 N.E.2d 177, 184 (2002).
With limited exceptions, circuit courts have "`original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters.'" Ligon v. Williams, 264 Ill. App. 3d 701, 707 (1994), quoting Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 9. The court's authority to exercise its jurisdiction and resolve a justiciable question is invoked through the filing of a complaint or petition, pleadings that function to frame the issues for the trial court and circumscribe the relief the court is empowered to order.
With limited exceptions, the circuit court has "`original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters.'" Ligon v. Williams, 264 Ill. App. 3d 701, 707, 637 N.E.2d 633, 638 (1994), quoting Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 9. The court's authority to exercise its jurisdiction and resolve a justiciable question is invoked through the filing of a complaint or petition, pleadings that function to frame the issues for the trial court and circumscribe the relief the court is empowered to order.
) A justiciable matter is one which involves the adverse legal interests of the parties to an action. ( Ligon v. Williams (1994), 264 Ill. App.3d 701, 637 N.E.2d 633.) In application to any particular case, the subject matter jurisdiction of the court is the power to hear and determine that controversy.