Page 7 - John Hundley 2019

Litigation Law Roundup

Sharp Thinking

No. 166 Perspectives on Developments in the Law from Sharp-Hundley, P.C. March 2019
“New” Jurisdiction Doctrine Reaches Probate Courts

By John T. Hundley, 618-242-0200, john@sharp-hundley.com

Appellate courts’ attacks on outdated concepts of “subject matter” jurisdiction continue apace.

The problem arises because prior to changes in the judicial article of the Illinois Constitution of 1870 in
1964, Illinois’ judiciary was comprised of many types of different courts and it
often was necessary allege certain prerequisites to establish the power of a
particular court to act in a given case. The prerequisites came to be known as
“jurisdictional” for the limited-subject-matter courts. The problem also arose
where the legislature established new statutory causes of action having no kin in
the common law. The elements and prerequisites established in the statute
became known as “jurisdictional” for the statutory causes of action.

But in 1964, Illinois amended its judicial article to establish a unified
judiciary, abolishing the old limited-subject-matter courts. It said that from then
on the Circuit Courts would, with limited exceptions, be courts of general subject
matter jurisdiction, with authority to hear all “justiciable matters”. These changes
were incorporated into the new Illinois Constitution (1970) when it was adopted
six years later. Hundley

In 2002, the Illinois Supreme Court addressed forthrightly the impacts of these changes for the
doctrine of subject matter jurisdiction in Illinois trial courts. Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc., 199 Ill.2d 325 (2002). No longer was the doctrine of “special statutory causes of action” with
their jurisdictional prerequisites good law. Now, if a complaint presented a dispute of the sort normally
heard by Illinois trial court, there was subject matter jurisdiction.

In Sharp Thinking No. 160 (Oct. 2018), we discussed an Appellate Court’s extension of that reasoning
to the area of post-judgment collection procedures. In Sharp Thinking No. 162 (Jan. 2019), we noted the
similar spread of the Belleville Toyota doctrine to eviction courts.

Now comes In re Guardianship of Burdge, 2018 IL App (5th) 170317, in which the state’s southern-
most district makes clear that the new approach applies in probate matters. This is significant, because
pre-1964 probate courts were a prime example of those limited-subject-matter courts.

Old ways of thinking sometimes die hard. In both the probate and eviction contexts, not only have
practitioners been stuck in the old ways of thinking about subject-matter thinking, the Appellate Courts
have also. Thus, the recent cases represent overturning of some post-1964 published opinions in these
areas. But better late than never. The constitutional amendments of 1964 made seismic changes in the
judicial article. The aftershocks still are being felt now.

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
Sharp Thinking is an occasional newsletter of Sharp-Hundley, P.C. addressing developments in the law which may be of interest. Nothing contained in Sharp Thinking
shall be construed to create an attorney-client relation where none previously has existed, nor with respect to any particular matter. The perspectives herein constitute
educational material on general legal topics and are not legal advice applicable to any particular situation. To establish an attorney-client relation or to obtain legal advice on
your particular situation, contact a Sharp-Hundley lawyer at 618-242-0200 or one of the addresses provided on page 2 of this newsletter.