TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION 1

IL SECTION 2-615 MOTIONS 3

A. The Various Types of 2-615 Motions 3

1. Motions to Strike and Motions to Dismiss 3
2. Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings 5
a. Nature of the motion 5
b. Standards for deciding the motion 6
3. Motions to make definite and certain 7
4. Motions relating to joinder of parties 7

B. Motions to Strike Pleadings as Substantially Insufi5cient at Law 8

1. What may be considered 8
2. Standards to be applied 11
a. To the motion 11
b. To the pleading attacked 12
3. When it may be raised 14

C. Leave to Amend 16

D. Problems of Waiver and Appeal 18

DI. SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS 20

A. Section 2 1005: Summary Judgment

- 20

B. Nature and Purpose of the Motion 21

1. Generally 21
2. Distinguishing summary judgment motions from pleading motions . 23
3. Motions for partial summary judgment 24
4. Summary determination of major issues 24

C. When May It Be Raised 25

 Page

1. By plaintiff 25
2. By defendant 25
3. Supreme Court Rule 191(a) 27
a. The Rule 27
b. Application 27

What May Be Considered 28

1. Generally 29
2. Pleadings 29
3. Admissions 30
a. Judicial Admissions 31
b. Evidentiary Admissions 31
4. Affidavits 32
5. Depositions 33
6. Other Evidentiary Material 33
7. Presumptions 34
8. Supreme Court Rule 191(a) 35
a. The Rule 35
b. Interpretation . ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9. Counter-Evidentiary Material 39
a. Effect of Failure to File 39
b. Timeliness 39
c. Effect of Prior Judicial Admission 40
10. Missing or Unavailable Evidence 42
a. Supreme Court Rule 191(b) 42
b. Application 42

E. Standards To Be Applied 43

F. Leave To Amend 45

G. Motions To Reconsider 48
1. In General 48
2. Evidentiary Matters 48

H. Enforcement 49
1. In General 49
2. Supreme Court Rule 304(a) 49
3. Supreme Court Rule 192 50
L Problems Of Waiver and Appeal 50


Page

TV. SECTION 2-619 MOTIONS FOR INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 52

A. In General 53
1. Overlap with Section 2-615 motions 54
2. Overlap with Section 2-1005 motions 54
a. Similarities 54
b. Differences 55

B. When The Motion May Be Raised 56

C. Grounds For The Motion 56

1. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction 57
2. Lack of Capacity to Sue 57
3. Prior Pending Actions 58
4. Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel 59
5. Statute of Limitations or Repose 59
6. Release, Satisfaction or Discharge 60
7. Statute of Frauds . . . . , .... ...
8. Defendant's Minority of Disability 61
9. Other Affirmative Matter 61
a. Meaning 61
b. Examples 62

D. What May Be Considered 63

E. Standards To Be Applied 64

F. Resolving Issues Of Fact 65

G. Leave to Amend 66
H. Problems Of Waiver and Appeal 66
 PRE-TRIAL MOTION PRACTICE
by
Hon. Thomas E. Hoffman
Appellate Judge, ld District
Updated October 2005

I. INTRODUCTION.

Pre-Trial motion practice in Illinois covers a wide range of topics

and it is not the intention of the author to presume to present all
possible variations that one might encounter. It is the intention of this
work to present the most common motions that might be encountered
in the average case.

Although Sec. 2-619.1 of the Civil Practice Law (735 ELCS 5/2-
619.1 (West 2004)) provides a pleading device for the filing of
combined motions, it does not authorize hybrid motion practice. Our
Supreme Court in Janes v. First Federal Savings, 57 Ill. 2d 398, 312
N.E. 2d 605 (1974), expressly disapproved of hybrid motion practice
and stated that it should not be sanctioned at the trial level. Hence,
it is imperative that members of the bench and bar alike be precise in
the manner in which pre-trial motions are presented and the manner
in which they are ruled upon. The bar must be vigilant in labeling
their motions since the motion itself determines the standards
applicable to their resolution. The bench must be careful to maintain
a clear record as to the type of motion being decided so that a
reviewing court is able to address the merits of a ruling. Although a
reviewing court may disregard the trial court's failure to distinguish
between the various types of pre-trial motions (see Janes v. First
Federal Savings, supra.; Moreno v. Joe Perillo, 112 Ill. App. 3d 670,
445 N.E.2d 1184 (1983-1st Dist)) where no prejudice to the
respondent is evident (Anzinger v. Illinois, 144111. App. 3d 719, 494
N.E.2d 655 (1986-1st Dist)), a reversal will follow where there is a
prejudice to the non-moving party. Illinois Graphics Co. v. Nickum,
159 EL 2d 469, 639 N.E.2d 1282 (1994); Premier v. LaSalle, 115 Ill.
App. 3d 638, 450 N.E.2d 1360 (1983-2nd Dist). Prejudice can occur
by reason of the movant's failure to label a motion. Eddings v.
Dundee, 135 Ill. App. 3d 190, 478 N.E.2d 888 (1985-2nd Dist).

If the reviewing court is unable to determine the type of motion

that was before the trial court, the judgment below may be reversed
without addressing the merits of the motion. As was stated in the
case of Morrev v. Kinetic, 133 Ill. App. 3d 1002, 479 N.E.2d 953
(1985-1st Dist): "Reviewing courts are not under a duty to search the
record to determine the real issues nor seek material for disposition
of such issues. [Citations omitted.] After a shirt or blouse is
incorrectly buttoned, the solution is to unbutton it completely and
start all over. Reviewing courts should not have to speculate on what
matters were before the trial court, what was considered, and why it
was considered. It is best for the record to be put in proper order."
133 111. App. 3d at 1005.

Accordingly, a trial judge should insist from the very beginning

that the litigants properly label their motions and refrain from hybrid
motion practice.

-2-
SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS

A. Sec. 2-1005. Summary Judoments.

(a) For plaintiff. Any time after the opposite party has
appeared or after the time within which he or she is required
to appear has expired, a plaintiff may move with or without
supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in his or her
favor for all or any of the relief sought.

(b) FOr defendant. A defendant may, at any time, move

with or without supporting affidavits for a summary judgment
in his or her favor as to all or any part of the relief sought
against him or her.

(c) Procedure. The opposite party my prior to or at the

time of the hearing on the motion file counteraffidavits. The
judgment sought shall be rendered without delay if the
pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with
the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to
,

any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a

judgment as a matter of law. A summary judgment,
interlocutory in character, may be rendered on the issue of
liability alone although there is a genuine issue as to the
amount of damages.

(d) Summary determination of major issues. If the court

determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to
one or more of the major issues in the case, but that
substantial controversy exists with respect to other major
issues, or if a party moves for a summary determination of
one or more, but less than all, of the major issues in the case,
and the court finds that there is no genuine issue of material
fact as to that issue or those issues, the court shall thereupon
draw an order specifying the major issue or issues that appear
without substantial controversy, and directing such further
proceedings upon the remaining undetermined issues as are
just. Upon the trial of the case, the facts so specified shall be
deemed established, and the trial shall be conducted
accordingly.

(e) Form of affidavits. The form and contents of and

-20-
 procedure relating to affidavits under this Section shall be as
provided by rule.

(f) Affidavits made in bad faith. If it appears to the

satisfaction of the court at any time that any affidavit
presented pursuant to this Section is presented in bad faith or
solely for the purpose of delay, the court shall without -delay
order the party employing it to pay to the other party the
amount of the reasonable expenses which the filing of the
affidavit caused him or her to incur, including reasonable
attorney's fees, and any offending party or attorney may be
adjudged guilty of contempt.

(g) Amendment of pleading. Before or after the entry of

a summary judgment, the court shall permit pleadings to be
amended upon just and reasonable terms.

735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2004).

B. Nature and Purpose of the Motion.

1. Generally.

As was noted by our Supreme Court in Allen v. Meyer, 14 Ill. 2d

284 at 292, 152 N.E.2d 576 (1958):
"Summary judgment procedure is an important tool in the
administration of justice. Its use in a proper case, wherein is
presented no genuine issue as to any material fact, is to be
encouraged_ The benefits of summary judgment in a proper case
inure not only to the litigants, in the saving of time and expense,
but to the community in avoiding congestion of trial calendars
and the expenses of unnecessary trials."

Summary judgement is a fact motion the purpose of which is to

determine the existence or absence of a genuine issue as to any
material fact. Carruthers v. Christopher, 57 Ill. 2d 376, 313 N.E.2d
457 (1974); Allen v. Meyer, supra. But, it cannot be used to resolve

-21-
an issue of fact when one is found to exist. Addison v. Whittenberg,
124 M. 2d 287, 529 N.E.2d 552 (1988); Puttman v. May, 118 lll. 2d
107, 514 N.E.2d 188 (1987).

Summary judgment is a drastic method of disposing of a case, and

it should not be employed unless the pleadings, depositions and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the right of the
moving party to judgment as a matter of law is free from doubt.
Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill. 2d 229, 489 N.E.2d 867 (1986); Murphy v.
Urso 88 Ill. 2d 444, 430 N.E.2d 1079 (1982).

Although Section 2-1005, sub-sections (a) and (b) each state that
a party may move for summary judgment "with or without supporting
affidavits", if a motion for summary judgment is not supported by
evidentiary material which if uncontradi cted would entitle the movant
to judgment as a matter of law, the parties are in no different position
then when they joined in issue and the motion will be denied. Cato v.
Thompson, 83 III. App. 3d 321, 403 N.E.2d 1239 (1980-2nd Dist);
Kielbasa v. St. Mary of Nazareth Hosp., 209 Ill. App. 3d 401, 568
N.E.2d 208 (1991-1st Dist).

The resolution of a motion for summary judgment is not a matter

committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Either the
movant is entitled to the judgment sought as a matter of law or the
motion must be denied. To hold otherwise, would be contrary to the
provisions of Section 2-1005 and could in some circumstances be an
infringement upon a party's constitutional right to trial by jury. Yusuf
v. Village of Villa Park, 120 Ill. App. 3d 533, 458 N.E.2d 575 (1983-

-22-
 2nd Dist), distinguished on other grounds by Galik v. County of Lake,
335 III. App. 3d 325, 781 N.E.2d 522 (2002-2nd Dist); Manahan v.
Daily News-Tribune, 50 M. App. 3d 9, 365 N.E.2d 1045 (1977-3d
Dist); Wegener v. Anna, 11111. App. 3d 309, 296 N.E.2d 354 (1973-
5th Dist).

2. Distinguishing Summary Judgment

Motions from Pleading Motions.

A motion for summary judgment is not a pleading motion it is a

fact motion. Pleading motions are brought pursuant to section 2-615.
Sections 2-1005 and 2-615 provide for two entirely distinct
procedures. A pleading motion brought pursuant to section 2-615
places in issue only the sufficiency of the pleading under attack, Such
- a motion by its very nature does not question the existence of facts to
support the allegations in the pleading. In that regard, the motion
concedes the truth of all well pled facts contained within the pleading
(O'Fallon v. Rine, 37 M. 2d 84, 224 N.E.2d 782 (1968)) and as such,
the respondent may rely upon the factual allegations in the pleading
to defeat the motion. A motion for summary judgment, on the other
hand, does not question the sufficiency of any pleading. Rather, the
motion assumes that the pleadings are sufficient to put the parties at
issue (Janes v. 1st Fed. Savings, 57 M. 2d 398, 312 N.E.2d 605
(1974)) and seeks to pierce the pleadings and raise the issue of
whether evidence exists to support the allegations of fact contained
therein. Hence, unlike aPleading motion, in a summary judgment
proceeding, the respondent cannot rely upon the factual allegations in
his or her pleading to defeat the motion, nor can the movant rely upon
his or her pleading to support the motion. Carruthers v. Christopher,

-23-
57 El. 2d 376, 313 N.E.2d 457 (1974). The distinction between a
pleading motion pursuant to Section 2-615 and a fact motion pursuant
to Section 2-1005 was the subject of the Supreme Court's decision in
Janes v. 1st Fed. Savings, supra., wherein the court severely criticized
the failure of both the parties and the trial court for neglecting to
observe and honor the distinctions in proceeding to argue and decide
a motion which combined both pleading and factual issues.

3. Motions for Partial Summary Judgment.

Sections 2-1005 (a), (b) and (c) provide the statutory authorization
for the entry of a partial summary judgment for any part, but less than
all, of the relief sought by a party or as to the issue of liability alone.
Sections 2-1005 (a) and (b) clearly authorize the entry of partial
summary judgment on one or more, but less than all, of the counts of
a multi-count complaint. See Brewer v. Daubert, 72 Ill. App. 3d 718,
391 N.E.2d 110 (1979-1st Dist); Metropolitan v. Pontarelli, 7 Ill.
App. 3d 829, 288 N.E.2d 905 (1972-1st Dist). If a partial summary
judgment is entered on the issue of liability only under Section 2-
1005(c), the order is interlocutory in nature and may be modified or
vacated at any time before a final judgment is entered. Leopold v.
Levin, 45 111. 2d 434, 259 N.E.2d 250 (1970).

4. Summary Determination of Major Issues.

Section 2-1005(d) permits the court to use the summary judgment

procedure to enter findings as to uncontroverted facts and to make
those findings of fact binding upon the parties upon the trial of the
cause. Such factual findings may be entered under this section of the

-24-
Code of Civil Procedure even though they do not result in the
entitlement of a party to either a complete or partial judgment. The
effect of Section 2-1005(d) which was adopted by the legislature
effective September 14, 1985, was to render the decision in
Schutzenhofer v. Granite Cityaesl, 93 I11.2d 208, 443 N.E.2d 563
(1982), no longer applicable to summary judgment proceedings.
Relief under this section may be granted upon motion of a party or by
the court on its own initiative when ruling on a motion for either full
or partial summary judgment.

C. When May It Be Raised.

1. By Plaintiff.

Section 2-1005(a) provides that a plaintiff may move for a

summary judgment for all or any of the relief sought at any time after
the respondent has appeared or at any time within which the
respondent is required to appear has expired.

2. By Defendant.

Section 2-1005(b) provides that a defendant may move for a

summary judgment for all or any of the relief sought against him or
her at any time. This section of the Code of Civil Procedure has been
interpreted to mean that a defendant may file a motion for summary
judgment even before the filing of an answer. By filing a motion for
summary judgment before filing an answer, the defendant does not
admit the truth of all well pleaded facts contained within the
complaint, but does, for the purposes of the motion, admit the well

-25-
pleaded facts in the complaint that the defendant leaves
uncontradicted by evidentiary material submitted in support of the
motion. Bank of Waukegan v. Epilepsy Foundation, 163 DI. App. 3d
901, 516 N.E.2d 1337 (1987-2nd Dist); Florsheim v. Travelers, 75
App. 3d 298, 393 N.E.2d 1223 (1979-1st Dist); Metropolitan v.
Pontarelli, supra.

An argument is often made that a motion for summary judgment

is premature when it is brought early on in litigation and before
discovery is completed. Supreme Court Rule 191(b) specifies the
procedure to be followed when a party requires additional discovery
prior to responding to a motion for summary judgment. (see: section
III (D)(10), infra.) If a respondent fails to comply with Rule 191(b),
he will not be heard to complain of an inability to conduct discovery
before the summary judgment motion is heard. Rogers v. Robson, 74
111. App. 3d 467 at 471, 392 N.E.2d 1365 (1979-3d Dist), affd, 81 M.
2d 201, 407 N.E.2d 47 (1980); Wooding v. L & J Press, 99111. App.
3d 382, 425 N.E.2d 1055 (1981-1st Dist), appeal denied (1981), 85
III. 2d 582. An interesting sub-issue arises, when a respondent to a
summary judgment motion argues that discovery from the movant is
necessary prior to his being required to respond to the motion. If the
discovery requested is central to the issues raised in the summary
judgment motion, then it may be an abuse of discretion for a trial
court to refuse to stay the summary judgment proceedings pending
movant's compliance with the requested discovery under the authority
granted to the court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219(c)(i) even
absent the respondent's compliance with the provisions of Rule
191(b). Hanes v. Orr, 53 Ill. App. 3d 72, 368 N.E.2d 584 (1977-1st
Dist); but see Schroeder v. Reddick, 128 DI. App. 3d 832, 471 N.E.2d

-26-
621(1984-1st Dist). Relief under Rule 219 may not be available if the
discovery request in itself was not timely. Certified v. Hodgkins, 145
Ill. App. 3d 406, 495 N.E.2d 1080 (1986-1st Dist). If the discovery
requested is not essential to the determination of the issues raised by
the motion for summary judgement, then relief under Rule 219(c)(i)
ought not be granted and the respondent must comply with the
provisions of Rule 191(b). Kittleson v. United Parcel, 162111. App.
3d 966, 379 N.E.2d 1268 (1987-1st Dist).

3. Supreme Court Rule 191(a).

(a) The Rule.

"(a) Requirements. Motions for summary judgment under

section 2-1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure and motions for
involuntary dismissal under section 2-619 of the Code of Civil
Procedure must be filed before the last date, if any, set by the trial
court for the filing of dispositive motions...."

(b) Application.

Although Section 2-1005, sub-sections (a) and (b) purport to fix

the time when plaintiffs and defendants may bring their motions for
summary judgment, Rule 191(a) provides that the trial court may fix
an outside date for the filing of such motions. To the extent that one
might argue that Section 2-1005, sub-sections (a) and (b) are in
conflict with the provisions of Rule 191(a) on this issue, then Rule
191(a) must control. O'Connell v. St. Francis, 112 111. 2d 273, 280-
282, 492 N.E.2d 1322 (1986); Peonle v. Cox, 82 III. 2d 268, 274, 412
N.E.2d 541 (1980).

-27-
 Several Circuit Courts have provided by Circuit Court Rule for
the outside date upon which a motion for summary judgment may be
filed. Examples of such rules at as follows:

The Circuit Court of Cook County:

Motions for summary judgement must be "...filed and noticed for
hearing not later than 45 days before the trial date, except by prior
leave of court and for good cause shown." Circuit Court Rule 2.1(f).

16th Judicial Circuit:

Motions for summary judgment in Law Division cases "...shall be
filed and brought to argument before the judge no later than 90 days
before the scheduled trial date, except by prior leave of court and for
good cause shown." Circuit Court Rule 6.04(a).

18th Judicial Circuit:

Motions for summary judgment in civil proceedings "...shall be
filed no later than 30 days before the scheduled trial date, except by
prior leave of court and for good cause shown." Circuit Court Rule
6.04(a).

19th Judicial Circuit:

"In any cause of action, the court may designate a date by which
all motions are to be on file. A motion may not be filed subsequent
to that date except by leave of court."
Circuit Court Rule 2.03(a).

D. 'What May Be Considered.

-28-
 1. Generally.

Section 2-1005(c) by its very terms contemplates that the court

will consider the pleadings, depositions, admissions on file and
affidavits in resolving a motion for summary judgment. Section 2-
1005(e) provides that the form and content of affidavits submitted in
support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment shall
be as provided by rule, and the Supreme Court has so provided in
Rule 191(a). While section 2-1005(e) speaks only to affidavits being
in the form and content as provided by rule and Rule 191(a) itself
speaks only to the form and content of affidavits, it is clear that Rule
191(a) is applicable to all pleadings and evidentiary material
submitted in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary
judgment. See Central Clearing v. Omega, 42 Ill. App. 3d 1025, 356
N.E.2d 852 (1976-1st Dist) (as to pleadings); Stando v. Grossinger,
89 Ill. App. 3d 898, 412 N.E.2d 600 (1980-1st Dist) (as to
depositions).

2. Pleadings.

Generally, on a motion for summary judgment, the court will

consider the pleadings for the limited purpose of discerning what
issues are raised by the controversy. Ohio Oil v. Yacktman, 36 Ill.
App. 3d 255, 343 N.E.2d 544 (1976-1st Dist). A party may not rely
upon his own unverified pleadings to support a motion for summary
judgment. Cato v. Thompson, supra. So also, a party may not rely
upon his own unverified pleadings to oppose a motion for summary
judgment when the movant has supplied evidentiary material which
if =contradicted would entitle him to judgment as a matter of law.

-29-
Carruthers v. Christopher, supra. A party may be able to rely upon
his own verified pleadings to support or oppose a motion for
summary judgment if the verification satisfies the requirements of
Supreme Court Rule 191(a). See Central v. Omega, 42 Ill. App. 3d
1025, 356 N.E.2d 852 (1976-Ist Dist); but see Doherty v. Kill, 140
Ill. App. 3d 158, 488 N.E.2d 629 (1986-1st Dist); Wooding v. L & J,
99 111. App. 3d 382, 425 N.E.2d 1055 (1981-1st Dist); LaMonte v.
City ofBelleville, 41 DI. App. 3d 697, 355 N.E.2d 70 (1976-5th Dist).

As indicated earlier, in deciding a motion for summary judgment,

the court considers the pleadings to determine what the issues in
controversy are. However, the court is not prohibited from
considering a motion for summary judgment based upon an
affirmative defense which was not previously raised in the movant's
answer or by a motion for involuntary dismissal under section 2-619.
Metropolitan v. Pontarelli, 7111. App. 3d 829, 288 N.E.2d 905 (1972-
1st Dist), appeal denied, 53 111. 2d 603 (1973); Florsheim v.
Travelers 75111. App. 3d 298, 393 N.E.2d 1223 (1979-1st Dist). But,
a respondent to a motion for summary judgment cannot create an
issue of fact and defeat an otherwise well taken motion for summary
judgment by introducing evidentiary material in support of a theory
of liability that has not been pled. Eikey v. Rapp, 205 Ili. App. 3d 46,
562 N.E.2d 1274 (1990-3d Dist).

3. Admissions.

The admissions of a party may always be used as against that

party to either support or oppose a motion for summary judgment.
Admissions fall into one of two categories. They are either'udicial

-30-
admissions" or "evidentiary admissions". The rules attendant to each
type of admission differ, especially in the ability of the party against
whom the admission is offered to introduce evidentiary material
which contradicts the admission.

a. Judicial Admissions.

The definition of a "judicial admission" and its effects are

discussed in sub-section 9(e) of this section, infra. Admissions or
statements of fact made in any of the following circumstances may be
deemed "judicial admissions":

Verified Pleadings (Bartsch v.Gordon, 138 Dl. App. 3d

188, 485 N.E.2d 1105 (1985-1st Dist); even verified
pleadings which have been amended unless the amended
pleading discloses that the admission in the prior pleading
was the result of mistake or inadvertence. Ryan v, Owens,
181 111. App. 3d 232, 536 N.E.2d 959 (1989-1st Dist);
Robins v. Lasky, 123 Ill. App. 3d 194, 462 N.E.2d 774
(1984-1st Dist));

Responses to Requests to Admit pursuant to Supreme

Court Rule 216. However, such an admission may not be
used against a party in any proceeding other than the one
in which it was made. (S.Ct.R. 216(e))

b. Evidentiary Admissions.

An excellent discussion on the topic of "evidentiary admissions"

-31-
 and their uses can be found in Cleary & Graham's Handbook of
Illinois Evidence, section 802.11 (5th ed. 1990). As noted therein,
evidentiary admissions maybe controverted (Avers v. Metcalf, 39 Ill.
307 (1866)) or explained (Haskell v. Siegmund, 28111. App. 2d 1, 170
N.E.2d 393 (1960-3d Dist)). Admissions and statements of fact made
in the following circumstances generally constitute "evidentiary
admissions":

- Unverified pleadings in the case, even superseded or

withdrawn pleadings. Chavez v. Watts, 161 Ill. App. 3d
664, 515 N.E.2d 146 (1987-1st Dist).

- Pleadings filed in other cases. Chambers v. Appel, 392

Ill. 294, 64 N.E.2d 511 (1946).

Answers to interrogatories. Fisch v. International, 33 III.

App. 3d 507, 338 N.E.2d 90 (1975-1st Dist).

If a party pleads two or more statements of fact in the alternative

pursuant to section 2-613(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, then
neither statement of fact can be used as an admission. Illinois v.
Turpen, 84 Ill. App. 3d 288, 405 N.E.2d 4 (1980-3d Dist); Nystrom
v. Bub, 36 Ill. App. 2d 333, 184 N.E.2d 273 (1962-2nd Dist); Tuttle
v. Fruehauf. 122 Ill. App. 3d 835, 462 N.E.2d 645 (1984-1st Dist).

4. Affidavits.

From the language of both Section 2-1005 and Supreme Court

Rule 191, it is clear that affidavits may be submitted both in support

-32-
of and in opposition to motions for summary judgment. The form
and content requirements for such affidavits are controlled by the
provisions of Rule 191(a) which is discussed in detail in sub-section
8 of this section, infra.

5. Depositions.

Depositions may be used in a summary judgment proceeding "for

any purpose for which an affidavit may be used." Lopez v.
Winchell's 126 111. App. 3d 46, 466 N.E.2d 1309 (1984-1st Dist); see
also S.Ct.R. 212(a)(4). To be used, a deposition must be part of the
court record. Supreme Court Rule 207 governs the procedure for the
signing and filing of depositions. To be used in a summary judgment
proceeding, the deposition must be signed or the signature
requirement must have been waived and the deposition must be
certified, sealed and filed of record. Failure to comply with this rule,
renders the deposition incompetent to support or to oppose a motion
for summary judgment. Urban v. Inverness, 176 111. App. 3d 1, 530
N.E.2d 976 (1988-1st Dist); Bezin v. Ginsburg, 59 Ill. App. 3d 429,
375 N.E.2d 468 (1978-1st Dist).

6. Other Evidentiary Material.

Evidentiary material which would be inadmissible upon the trial

of a cause may not be considered by a court in support of or in
opposition to a motion for sumrnaryjudgment. Kaplan v. Disera, 199
Ill. App. 3d 1093, 557 N.E.2d 924 (1990-3d Dist). Unswom
statements, photographs not authenticated by affidavit, copies of
documents not authenticated by affidavit and the like, even if attached

-33-
as exhibits to a motion for summary judgment or a response in
opposition, may not be considered in ruling upon the motion. See
Cato v. Thompson, 83 Ill. App. 3d 321, 403 N.E.2d 1239 (1980-2nd
Dist).

If a court could take judicial notice of a fact or of a document

upon the trial of a cause, then it may take judicial notice of it in a
summary judgment proceeding. See People ex rel 1st Nat. Bank v.
No. Chicago, 158 Ill. App. 3d 85, 104-105, 510 N.E.2d 577 (1987-
2nd Dist).

7. Presumptions.

A rebuttable presumption can be used to support or to oppose a

motion for summary judgment. The manner in which such a
presumption may be used and its effect upon a summary judgment
proceeding is essentially no different than the use and effect of a
presumption in reference to the underlying burdens of proof on the
trial of a cause. Rebuttable presumptions can create a prima fade
case as to the particular issue in question, the effect of which is to
shift the burden of coming forth with evidence to meet the
presumption to the party against whom the presumption operates.
Once evidence in opposition to the presumption is introduced, the
presumption ceases to exist and the matter must be determined as if
no presumption had ever existed. The existence of a rebuttable
presumption does not act to shift the burden of proof; in reality, the
presumption, absent evidence in opposition, operates to satisfy the
burden on the issue. But, once evidence in opposition to the
presumption is introduced, the party in whose favor the presumption

-34-
operated remains the burdened party on the issue. Franciscan Sisters
v. Dean, 95 III. 2d 452, 448 N.E.2d 872 (1983); Diederich v. Walters,
65 171. 2d 95, 357 N.E.2d 1128 (1976). The effect of a rebuttable
presumption is no different in a summary judgment proceeding.
Anderson v. Scon.za, 179 III. App. 3d 202, 534 N.E.2d 445 (1989-1st
Dist).

8. Supreme Court Rule 191(a).

a. The Rule.

"(a) Requirements. ... Affidavits in support of and in

opposition to a motion for summary judgment under Section 2-
1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure, affidavits submitted in
connection with a motion for involuntary dismissal under Section
2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and affidavits submitted in
connection with a special appearance to contest jurisdiction over
the person, as provided by Section 2-301(b) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, shall be made on the personal knowledge of the
affiants; shall set forth with particularity the facts upon which the
claim, counterclaim, or defense is based; shall have attached
thereto sworn or certified copies of all papers upon which the
affiant relies; shall not consist of conclusions but of facts
admissible in evidence; and shall affirmatively show that the
affiant, if sworn as a witness, can testify competently thereto. If
all of the facts to be shown are not within the personal knowledge
of one person, two or more affidavits shall be used."

b. Interpretation.

Affidavits (or other evidentiary material) submitted pursuant to

Rule 191(a) must:

1. Be made on the personal knowledge of the affiant;

-35-
 2. Set forth with particularity the facts upon which the claim,
counterclaim or defense is based;

3. Have attached thereto sworn or certified copies of all papers

upon which the affiant, relies;

4. Consist of facts admissible in evidence and not conclusions;

and,

5. Affirmatively show that the affiant, if sworn as a witness, can

competently testify to the facts recited therein.

As to the first element, the personal knowledge requirement, it is

satisfied if, from the document, considered as a whole, it appears that
it is based upon the personal knowledge of the affiant. Allied v.
Mickiewicz, 124 Ill. App. 3d 705, 464 N.E.2d 1112 (1984-Ist Dist).
Affidavits made upon the "information and belief' of the affiant are
never sufficient to satisfy this requirement. Fooden v. Board of
Governors, 48 111. 2d 580, 272 N.E.2d 497 (1971).

The second and fourth elements are usually dealt with as a single
element. They require that the affidavit consist of facts admissible in
evidence, set forth with particularity, and not conclusions. Affidavits
which merely set forth opinions of the affiant but fail to set forth the
factual support for the opinion do not satisfy these requirements.
Wilson v. Bell, 214 311. App. 3d 868, 574 N.E.2d 200 (1991-1st
Dist); Wells v. A &P, 171111. App. 3d 1012, 525 N.E.2d 1127 (1988-
1st Dist); Extel v. Cermetek 183 111. App. 3d 688, 539 N.E.2d 320
(1989-1st Dist); but see Matuszak v. Cerniak, 346 Ill. App. 3d 766,
805 N.E.2d 681 (2004-3rd Dist)(distinguishing Bell where an expert
witness's opinion in an affidavit was admissible as evidence). A .

review of these elements is critical when the affidavit under

consideration is that of an expert who is attempting to render an

-36-
opinion in the affidavit. Although Wilson v. Clark, 84 Ill. 2d 186,
417 N.E.2d 1322 (1981), permits an expert to render opinion
testimony at trial without disclosing the facts upon which the opinion
is based, the holding in Wilson v. Clark has no relevance to summary
judgment procedure. Robidoux v. Oliphant, 201 Ill. 2d 324, 775
N.E.2d 987 (2002); Kosten v. St. Anne's Hosp., 132 III. App. 3d
1073, 478 N.E.2d 464 (1985-1st Dist). As was noted in Wilson v.
Bell, supra,: "An expert's opinion is only as valid as the basis and
reasons for the opinion...When there is no factual support for an
expert's conclusions, his conclusions alone do not create a question
of fact." Wilson, 214 111. App. 3d at 875-876.

The third element requires the attachment of sworn or certified

copies of all papers upon which the affiant relies. This element is
subject to certain exceptions. If the papers relied upon are already part
of the court record as attachments to another affidavit which
authenticate them, they need not be attached to a subsequent affidavit
if they are relied upon by the affiant. Beals v. Huffman, 146 Ill. App.
3d 30, 496 N.E.2d 281 (1986-4th Dist); but see Robidoux v.
Oliphant, supra ("The Rule 191(a) provisions barring conclusionary
assertions and requiring an affidavit to state facts with "particularity"
would have little meaning were we to construe the attached-papers
provision as merely a technical requirement that could be disregarded
so long as the affiant were competent to testify at trial.") Supporting
documents need not themselves be sworn to or certified when they are
incorporated by reference into an affidavit when the affidavit reflects
that the affiant has personal knowledge as to their authenticity and
that the facts contained therein are true. Ciochon v. Bellino, 184 Ill.
App. 3d 993, 540 N.E.2d 840 (1989-1st Dist). Lastly, one need not

-37-
attach all of one's records to establish a negative. That is to say that
one need not attach all of one's records to an affidavit to support a
statement in an affidavit that no particular record exists or that no
reference to a given fact exists in the records. Such a statement can
be competently made in an affidavit without attachment by the person
who has examined the records in issue provided that the opposing
party has been afforded an opportunity to examine the records.
Tipsord v. Unarco, 188 M. App. 3d 895, 544 N.E.2d 1198 (1989-4th
Dist).

The last element requires that the document, when considered as

a whole, support the reasonable inference that the affiant could
competently testify to the matters contained therein if sworn as a
witness. Burks v. Washington, 110 El. App. 3d 569, 442 N.E.2d 648
(1982-2nd Dist); Allied v. Mickiewicz, supra. The rule does not
require that the affidavit contain a specific statement that the affiant
could competently testify to the facts therein. Mount Prospect State
Bank v. Forestry, 93 Ill. App. 3d 448, 417 N.E.2d 621 (1980-1st
Dist); Burks v. Washington, supra. This element prohibits the
consideration of evidentiary material which could not be considered
at trial by reason of substantive or evidentiary rules such as the "Parol
Evidence Rule", or the "Dead Man's Act". Widlow v. Wagner, 29 Ill.
App. 3d 172, 329 N.E.2d 911 (1975-2nd Dist). It will also prevent
the consideration of evidentiary material submitted in violation of a
prior order in the case. James v. Yasunaga. 157 M. App. 3d 450, 510
N.E.2d 531 (1987-4th Dist); Castro v. South Chicago, 166 111. App.
3d 479, 519 N.E.2d 1069 (1988-1st Dist); but see Cornet v. Foster,
167 ill. App. 3d 1023, 522 N.E.2d 117 (1988-1st Dist). Hearsay
statements will not be considered except for the purpose of

-38-
impeachment. Beauvoir v. Rush, 137 Ill. App. 3d 294, 484 N.E.2d
841 (1985-1st Dist).

9. Counter-Evidentiary Material.

a. Effect of Failure to File.

Proper evidentiary material submitted in support of a motion for

summary judgment will be taken as true unless contradicted by prop er
counter-evidentiary material submitted in opposition to the motion,
notwithstanding the existence of contrary averments in the
respondent's pleadings. Fooden v. Board of Governors, 48 ill. 2d
580, 587, 272 N.E.2d 497 (1971); Carruthers v. Christopher, 57 111.
2d 376, 380, 313 N.E.2d 457 (1974).

The fact that a respondent may obtain the testimony of a witness

at some future date which might create an issue of fact is of no
moment in the disposition of a motion for summary judgment
supported by evidentiary material which if uncontradicted would
entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law. As our Supreme
Court noted in Addison v. Wittenberg, supra: "[T]he possibility of
further disclosures of expert opinion...will [not] enable a party to
avoid a summary judgment to which the movant is otherwise entitled
at the time the motion is heard." Addison, 124 Ill. 2d at 296.

b. Timeliness.

Section 2-1005(c) provides that a party may file counteraffidavits

prior to or at the time of the hearing on the motion for summary

-39-
judgment. The failure on the part of a trial court to consider counter-
evidentiary materials offered for the first time on the date of the
hearing on the motion is error. Lombard v. Elmore, 134 Ill. App. 3d
898, 480 N.E.2d 1329 (1985-1st Dist). However, a trial court is not
required to consider counteraffidavits submitted for the first time after
the order granting summary judgment has been entered. Mid
America v. Smith, 109 111. App. 3d 1121, 441 N.E.2d 949 (19824th
Dist). For a more in depth discussion of this issue, see Section G(2)
hereinafter.

c. Effect of Prior Judicial Admissions.

A party cannot create a genuine issue of fact and thereby defeat

a motion for summary judgment by introducing counter evidentiary
material which contradicts that party's own judicial admissions. Riley
v. Physicians, 192 Ill. App. 3d 23, 548 N.E.2d 8.11 (1989-3d Dist).
The rule is applicable in cases where the respondent to a motion for
summary judgment attempts to introduce his own affidavit which
contradicts his prior judicial admissions (Hansen v. Ruby [I],155 Ill.
App. 3d 475, 508 N.E.2d 301 (1987-1st Dist); Schmahl v. A.V.C.,
148 Ill. App. 3d 324, 499 N.E.2d 572 (1986-1st Dist)) and in cases
where the respondent attempts to introduce the affidavit or deposition
testimony of a third party which contradicts the respondent's prior
judicial admissions (Hansen v. Ruby [1:1], 164311. App. 3d 884, 518
N.E.2d 354 (1987-1st Dist); Finley v. Mercer, 172 111. App. 3d 30,
526 N.E.2d 635 (1988-3d Dist)). The reason for this rule is obvious;
once a party has sworn to a fact under oath he should not be invited
to commit perjury merely to avoid the consequences ofhis own sworn
statements. Tom Olesker's Fashion v. Dun & Bradstreet, 71 IR. App.

-40-
3d 562, 390 N.E.2d 60 (1979-1st Dist).

To bind a party such that he may not contradict them by counter

evidentiary material, that party's prior statements must be judicial
admissions. To constitute a judicial admission, the statement must
have been made under oath; it must be a statement of concrete fact,
not a matter of speculation, inference or opinion; the statement of fact
must be deliberate; it must be as to a matter within the peculiar
knowledge of the party so making it; and, the statement must be
unequivocal. Derby v. Inter-Continental, 202 111. App. 3d 345, 559
N.E.2d 986 (1990-1st Dist); McCormack v. Haan, 23111. App. 2d 87,
161 N.E.2d 599 (1959-2nd Dist), reversed on other grounds, 20111. 2d
75, 169 N.E.2d 239 (1961); Gauchas V. CTA, 57 ill. App. 2d 396, 206
N.E.2d 752 (1965-1st Dist); Hansen v. Ruby I, supra. What does or
does not constitute a judicial admission is a matter to be considered
on an ad hoc basis. But, before a statement can be held to be a
judicial admission it must be given a meaning consistent with the
context in which it is found and by reference to the entirety of the
statement and not merely portions of it. Gauchas v. CTA, supra.;
Riley v. Physicians, supra, Whether a statement is equivocal is a
question of law to be determined by the court. Hansen v. Ruby 1,
supra.; Riley v. Physicians, supra. Additionally, the issue as to
whether a statement is one of fact or merely one of opinion is also a
question of law. See Arnold v. Consolidated, 227111. App. 3d 600,
592 N.E.2d 225 (1992-1st Dist); Thomas v. Northington, 134 El.
App. 3d 141, 479 N.E.2d 796 (1985-1st Dist). Judicial admissions
can be made in verified pleadings (eg. American v. Erickson, 115 Ill.
App. 3d 1026, 452 N.E.2d 3 (1983-1st Dist)), answers to
interrogatories, and in depositions (eg. Hansen v. Ruby I, supra.).

-41-
 10. Missing or Unavailable Evidence.

a. Supreme Court Rule 191(b).

"(b) When Material Facts Are Not Obtainable by Affidavit.

lithe affidavit of either party contains a statement that any of the
material facts which ought to appear in the affidavit are known
only to persons whose affidavits affiant is unable to procure by
reason of hostility or otherwise, naming the persons and showing
why their affidavits cannot be procured and what affiant believes
they would testify to if sworn, with his reasons for his belief, the
court may make any order that may be just, either granting or
refusing the motion, or granting a continuance to permit affidavits
to be obtained, or for submitting interrogatories to or taking the
depositions of any of the persons so named, or for producing
papers or documents in the possession of those persons or
furnishing sworn copies thereof. The interrogatories and sworn
answers thereto, depositions so taken, and sworn copies ofpapers
and documents so furnished, shall be considered with the
affidavits in passing upon the motion."
b. Application.

The sufficiency of an affidavit under Rule 191(b) was the subject

of the opinion in Koukoulomatis v. Disco Wheels, 127 111. App. 3d
95 at 99, 468 N.E.2d 477 (1984-1st Dist), where the court held:

"Pursuant to Rule 191(b), an affidavit must contain the following

information before the trial court is required to act upon it: (1) a
statement that material facts are unavailable, due to hostility or
otherwise; (2) the names of those persons the affiant wants to
depose; (3) a showing as to why affidavits could not be produced
from those named persons; (4) a statement as to what those
persons will testify, (5) the basis for the affiant's belief that those
persons will so testify, and (6) the affiant must be a party to the
action."

Affidavits signed by attorneys do not satisfy the requirements of Rule

191(b); the affiant must be a party to the cause. Rush v. Simon &
-42-
Mazian, 159 Ill. App. 3d 1081, 513 N.E.2d 100 (1987-1st Dist).

Rule 191(b) is the procedural mechanism provided to a

respondent to a motion for summary judgment (or a motion for
involuntary dismissal) who is in need of further discovery prior to
being required to respond to such a motion. Kittleson v. United
Parcel, 162 III. App. 3d 966, 379 N.E.2d 1268 (1987-1st Dist);
Schroeder v. Reddick, 128 III. App. 3d 832, 471 N.E.2d 621 (1984-
1st Dist); Wooding v. L & J Press, 99 Ill. App. 3d 382, 425 N.E.2d
1055 (1981-1st Dist), appeal denied, 85 Ill. 2d 582; Gill v. Chicago
Park Dist, 85 I11. App. 3d 903, 407 N.E.2d 671 (1980-1st Dist);;
Rogers v. Robson, 74 III. App. 3d 467, 392 N.E.2d 1365 (1979-3d
Dist), affd, 81 111. 2d 201, 407 N.E.2d 47 (1980); but see Hanes v.
Orr, 53 Ill. App. 3d 72, 368 N.E.2d 584 (1977-1st Dist).

E. Standards to be Applied.

One must never lose sight of the fact that the movant in a
summary judgment proceeding is the burdened party. As such, it is
not until the movant has come forward with evidentiary material
which, if uncontradicted, would entitle him or her to judgment as a
matter of law, that the respondent is ever required to submit
evidentiary material in opposition to the motion. Kielbasa v. St. Mary
of Nazareth Hosp., 209 Ill. App. 3d 401, 568 N.E.2d 208 (1991-1st
Dist). The summary judgment sought should be granted if the court
is prepared to find that there exists no genuine issue as to any
outcome determinative material fact and the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. Carruthers v. Christopher, supra.

-43-
 In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court is required
to strictly construe all evidentiary material submitted in support of the
motion while liberally construing all evidentiary material submitted
in opposition. Kolakowski v. Voris, 83 111. 2d 388, 398, 415 N.E.2d
397 (1980). All evidentiary material submitted in opposition to a
motion for summary judgment will be taken as true for the purposes
of ruling on the motion; conversely, all evidentiary material submitted
in support of the motion will be taken as true unless the opponent
submits contradictory evidentiary material. Fooden v. Board of
Governors, 48111.2d 580, 272 N.E.2d 497 (1972). If the evidentiary
material before the court could lead to more than one conclusion or
inference, then the court must adopt the conclusion or inference that
is most favorable to the opponent of the motion. Lapidot v.
Memorial 144111. App. 3d 141, 494N.E.2d 838 (1986-4th Dist). But
inferences or conclusions drawn from the evidentiary material before
the court must be reasonable. Courts are not required to adduce
remote factual possibilities in favor of the opponent of such a motion.
Gehrman v. Zajac, 34 Ill. App. 3d 164, 340 N.E.2d 184 (1975-1st
Dist). Similarly, parties are not permitted to rely upon guess,
speculation or conjecture to oppose a motion for summary judgment.
Consolino v. Thompson, 127 III. App. 3d 31, 468 N.E.2d 422 (1984-
1st Dist).

Issues of credibility (Beche v. Fred A. Smith, 9 Ill. App. 3d 563,

292 NE.2d572 (1973-2nd Dist)), motive, and intent (Fuentes v. Lear,
174 II App. 3d 864, 529 N.E.2d 40 (1988-2nd Dist)) are generally
inappropriate for disposition in a summary judgment proceeding. But
see Austin v. St. Joseph Hosp.,187111. App. 3d 891, 543 N.E.2d 932
(1989-1st Dist).
 When the parties file cross motions for summary judgment, they
concede that only a question of law is involved (Allen v. Meyer, 14
Ill. 2d 284, 152 N.E.2d 576 (1958)); but, the court is not obligated to
enter summary judgment for either party if material issues of fact
precluding judgment for either movant exist. Perlman v. Time, 64 III.
App. 3d 190, 380 N.E.2d 1040 (1978-1st Dist).

Summary judgment is a drastic measure that disposes of a case

without a trial and as such it should not be granted unless the right of
the movant is free from doubt. Murphy v. Urso, 88 III. 2d 444, 430
N.E.2d 1079 (1981). If the evidentiary material before the court
disclose a dispute as to any material issue of fact, then the motion
must be denied. Ray v. City, 19 M. 2d 593, 169 N.E.2d 73 (1960).

F. Leave to Amend.

Prior to the adoption of Section 2-1005(g), it was generally

accepted that a motion for leave to file an amended pleading, except
to conform the pleadings to the proofs, was improper post judgment
relief. See Fultz v. Haugan, 49 111. 2d 131, 305 N.E.2d 873 (1972);
but see Ruff v. Northwestern, 159 III. App. 3d 811, 513 N.E.2d 7
(1987-1st Dist).

After the adoption of Section 2-1005(g) which provides in

pertinent part: "Before or after the entry of a summary judgment, the
court shall permit pleadings to be amended upon just and reasonable
terms", essentially three schools of thought emerged as to the
interpretation of this provision of the statute.

-45-
 In Siebert v. Continental, 161 Ill. App. 3d 891, 515 N.E.2d 728
(1987-1st Dist), the court held that Section 24005(g) permits a court
to grant a plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint after the entry
of a summary judgment which constituted a final judgment. The
Siebert Court held that the relevant factors which a trial court should
consider in determining whether to exercise its discretion in favor of
granting leave to file an amended pleading are (1) whether the
proposed amendment would cure the defective pleading; (2) whether
other parties would sustain prejudice or surprise by virtue of the
proposed amendment; (3) the timeliness of the proposed amendment;
and, (4) whether previous opportunities to amend the pleading could
be identified. The court further held that the last element need not be
applied if the first three elements are decided in favor of allowing the
amendment.

In Wells v. Great Atlantic & Pacific, 171 Ill. App. 3d 1012, 525
N.E.2d 1127 (1988-1st Dist), another division of the 1st District of
the Appellate Court declined to follow Siebert v. Continental and
held that Section 2-1005(g) and Section 2-616(c) of the Code of Civil
Procedure must be construed with reference to one another so that
both sections may be given harmonious effect and as such, once a
summary judgment has been entered which constitutes a final
judgment, the only amendment which maybe made is one to conform
the pleadings to the proofs.

In Loyola Academy v. S & S Roof, 198 111. App. 3d 799, 556

N.E.2d 586 (1990-1st Dist), and Jiill v, Jones, 198 M. App. 3d 854,
556 N.E.2d 613 (1990-1st Dist), with one justice dissenting in both
cases, yet another division of the 1 st District of the Illinois Appellate

-46-
 Court, rejected the analysis in Wells, supra, and essentially adopted
the four part analysis set forth in Siebert. But, contrary to Siebert,
. that court held that the fourth element, "whether previous
opportunities to amend the pleading could be identified", was a
necessary element to the analysis. In so doing, the court found that
when a plaintiff fails to offer any justification as to why the proposed
amendment could not have been offered prior to the entry of a
summary judgment, a trial court does not abuse its discretion when it
denies leave to amend under section 2-1005(g).

The Supreme Court has settled the split in authority relating to the
interpretation of Section 2-1005(g) with its decision in Loyola
Academy v. S & S Roof, 146 111. 2d 263, 586 N.E.2d 1211 (1992).
The Supreme Court adopted the four part test outlined in Siebert, but
did not dispense with the fourth element as did the Siebert court.
Contrary to the Appellate Court, the Supreme Court in Loyola
Academy found that the plaintiff had met all four elements of the
analysis and held that the trial court had abused its discretion in
failing to permit the amendment. The Supreme Court, citing with
approval to Kupianen v. Graham, 107 Ill. App. 3d 373, 437 N.E.2d
774 (1982-1st Dist), held that the four factors to be examined in
determining whether a party should be granted leave to file an
amended pleading pursuant to Section 2-1005(g) after the entry of a
summary judgment are as follows:
1) Whether the proposed amendment would cure the defective
pleading;

2) Whether other parties would sustain prejudice or surprise by

virtue of the proposed amendment;

3) Whether the proposed amendment is timely; and,

-47-
 4) Whether previous opportunities to amend the pleading could
be identified.

The Supreme Court again reiterated that the trial court is vested with
broad discretion in motions to amend.

G. Motions to Reconsider

1. In General.

The purpose of a motion to reconsider is to bring to the court's

attention newly discovered evidence which was not available at the
time of the first hearing, changes in the law, or errors in the court's
previous application of existing law. Kaiser v. MEPC, 164 111. App.
3d 978, 518 N.E.2d 424 (1987-1st Dist). The motion is not intended
to afford a party an opportunity to relitigate or reargue that which has
already been argued.

2. Evidentiary Matters.

If a party fails to object to the sufficiency of his or her opponents

evidentiary material either by way of a motion to strike or within the
parties opposing papers prior to the court's ruling upon a motion for
summary judgment, that party is deemed to have waived any
objection to the sufficiency of the evidentiary material and may not
raise the issue in a motion for reconsideration. Stone v. McCarthy,
206111. App. 3d 893, 565 N.E.2d 107 (1990-1st Dist).

A trial court is not required to consider evidentiary material in

opposition to a motion for summary judgment submitted for the first

-48-
time with a motion for reconsideration after an order granting
summary judgment has been entered. Getman v. Indiana Harbor, 172
Ill. App. 3d 297, 526 N.E.2d 557 (1988-1st Dist). The submission of
new evidentiary material in opposition to a motion for summary
judgment in support of a motion for reconsideration is a matter
committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. But the court's
discretion should not be exercised in favor of allowing the submission
of such material for the first time after an order for summary
judgment has been entered in the absence of some reasonable
explanation of why it was not available at the time of the original
hearing. In the absence of any such explanation, there is no reason to
reconsider or change the original ruling on the motion. Delgato v.
Brandon. 131 Ill. 2d 183, 545 N.E.2d 689 (1989); Gardner v.
Navistar, 213 Ill. App. 3d 242, 571 N.E.2d 1107 (1991-4th Dist).

H. Enforcement

1. In General.

If an order granting summary judgment terminates the litigation

in toto then the judgment is enforceable in the same manner as all
other final judgments.

2. Supreme Court Rule 304(a).

If an order granting a summary judgment affords relief to one or

more but fewer than all of the parties or upon one or more but fewer
that all of the claims, then the judgment is unenforceable so long as
the case still pends at the trial level unless the trial court makes the

-49-
 requisite finding pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(a). Unless and
until an order is appealable, it may be modified at any time prior to
the entry of the final order which terminates the litigation in toto.
. Santana v. Zipperstein, 142 Ill. App. 3d 386, 491 N.E.2d 1231 (1986-
I st Dist).

3. Supreme Court Rule 192.

Supreme Court Rule 192 provides as follows:

When the entry of a summary judgment will not dispose of

all the issues in the case, the court may, as the justice of the case
shall require, either (1) allow the motion and postpone the entry
of judgment thereon; (2) allow the motion and enter judgment
thereon; or (3) allow the motion, enter judgment thereon, and stay
the enforcement pending the determination of the remaining
issues in the case. If the party resisting the entry of a summary
judgment relies upon an affirmative demand against the moving
party for an amount less than the tatter's demand, judgment for the
difference may be entered and enforced."

The application of the rule is a matter committed to the sound

discretion of the trial judge which involves an inquiry into the justice
of the case. In exercising that discretion, the court may inquire into
such matters as possible unfair advantage that might be gained by
either party, the merits of the remaining claims, and the ability of a
party to satisfy a judgment in the future. Samuels v. CHA, 207 Ill.
App. 3d 10, 565 N.E.2d 234 (1990-1st Dist).

I. Problems of Waiver and Appeal.

Objection to the sufficiency of evidentiary material submitted in

support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment must

-50-
be raised at the trial level before the motion is ruled upon. If a party
fails to object to the sufficiency of an opponent's evidentiary material
prior to the court's ruling upon a motion for summary judgment, the
issue is deemed waived for purposes of both a motion for
reconsideration (Stone v. McCarthy, supra) and for purposes of
appeal (Wogelius v. Dallas, 152 III. App. 3d 614, 504 N.E.2d 791
(1987-1st Dist); Urban v. Inverness, 176 DI. App. 3d 1, 530 N.E.2d
976 (1988-Ist Dist)).

The propriety of a trial court's denial of a motion for leave to file

an amended pleading is deemed waived if a copy of the proposed
amended pleading presented to the trial court is not included in the
record on appeal. Lowrey v. Malkowski, 20 Ill. 2d 280, 170 N.E.2d
147 (1960); Enblom v. Milwaukee Golf, 227 111. App. 3d 623, 592
N.E.2d 190 (1992-1st Dist).

The denial of a motion for summary judgment is not appealable

as such. If an issue of law is involved, a trial court might certify a
question for appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308. But, as a
general statement, the denial of a motion for summary judgment is
not appealable at any time. When the order is entered it lacks finality
and as such is not appealable and since it neither disposes of any issue
or any party it is not the proper subject of a Supreme Court Rule
304(a) finding. Further, since an order denying summary judgment
merges into the final judgment entered in the case, it is not subject to
review on appeal after the case is terminated at the trial level.
Banwart v. Okesson, 83 IlL App. 3d 222, 403 N.E.2d 1234 (1980-2nd
Dist); Home v, Reynolds, 38111. App. 2d 358, 187 N.E.2d 274 (1963-
1st Dist).

-51-
 The granting of a motion for summary judgment the effect of
which is to terminate the litigation in total is subject to appeal
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 301. If the order granting a
summary judgment is in itself a final judgment as to one or more but
fewer that all of the parties or claims, it can be appealed prior to the
termination of the entire case only when the trial judge makes the
requisite finding pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(a). Santana v.
Zipperstein, 142 II App. 3d 386, 491 N.E.2d 1231 (1986-1st Dist).

IV. SECTION 2-619 MOTIONS FOR INVOLUNTARY

DISMISSAL.

Sec. 2-619. Involuntary dismissal based upon certain defects or

defenses.

(a) Defendant may, within the time forpleading, file a motion for
dismissal of the action or for other appropriate relief upon any of the
following grounds. If the grounds do not appear on the face of the
pleading attacked the motion shall be supported by affidavit:

(1) That the court does not have jurisdiction of the subject
matter of the action, provided the defect cannot be removed by a
transfer of the cause to a court having jurisdiction.
(2) That the plaintiffdoes not have legal capacity to sue or the
defendant does not have legal capacity to be sued.
(3) That there is another action pending between the same
parties for the same cause.
(4) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment.
(5) That the action was not commenced within the time
limited by law.
(6) That the claim set forth in the plaintiffs pleading has been
released, satisfied of record, or discharged in bankruptcy.
(7) That the claim asserted is unenforceable under the
provisions of the Statute of Frauds.
(8) That the claim asserted against the defendant is
unenforceable because of his or her minority or other disability.
(9) That the claim asserted against the defendant is barred by
other affirmative matter avoiding the legal effect of or defeating

-52-