BlogLine

Half-sheet, whole problem: A lesson in appellate timeliness

10/10/25

By: Donald Patrick Eckler and Ryne Sack

In National Collegiate Student Loan Trust v. Phelps, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a notice of appeal was untimely filed, where the half-sheet shows that the court entered judgment more than 30 days before. The key provision in this judgment was Rule 303(a)(2), which states “no request for reconsideration of a ruling on a post-judgment motion will toll the running of the time within which a notice of appeal must be filed under this rule.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(a)(2). Practitioners should be aware of this decision because the right to appeal could be lost if you are unaware of the final judgment date.

In this case, defendant National Collegiate Student Loan Trust failed to preserve its right to appeal a final judgment entered on a half-sheet on April 24, 2023. The half-sheet entry stated that the court’s “ruling” was that defendant’s motion to reconsider was “denied.” Exactly 30 days later, on May 24, 2023, defendant filed a “Motion for Entry of Order,” seeking a final order in this matter without backdating the Order, so that she may preserve her right to an appeal. On September 7, 2023, the trial court entered an order, which in part stated that “a written order shall enter, dated April 24, 2023, to reflect the April 24, 2023, denial of Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider.” On September 29, 2023, defendant filed a notice of appeal.

On appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the notice of appeal was untimely filed. The court explained that docketing occurs with an entry in the official record, which can be accomplished by an entry on the half-sheet. The court further explained that defendant’s counsel could have filed a notice before submitting a draft order, and the notice would have become effective when the denial was deemed “entered.” Instead, defendant filed a motion asking the court to memorialize its April 24, 2023, ruling denying defendant’s post-judgment motion but to reconsider the date. The defendant argued that his motion seeking the entry of a separate typed order was a timely post-trial motion directed against the judgment that then tolled the time to file the notice of appeal. The court disagreed, stating that the motion was not needed to accomplish that task and that counsel could have presented a proposed order to the court.

In his dissent, Justice Mitchell turned to Rule 272, stating that its purpose is to remove any doubt as to the date a judgment is entered. He argued that the trial judge made an oral ruling and corresponding notation on a half-sheet on April 24, 2023, but no judgment was entered on the docket until September 7, 2023. He further explained that the September 7, 2023, order signed by the circuit court judge expressly found that no written order was entered into the Court’s record to reflect the April 24, 2023, denial of Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider. Still, the majority held that the time to appeal does not toll despite the absence of a written order when a half-sheet shows the court entered judgment.

Attorneys should be aware of this decision when thinking about preserving their right to appeal a case. Consider whether a final judgment was entered at a hearing, regardless of the format. The court set forth what defendant did wrong and what could have been done differently to preserve the appeal. Rather than requesting a hearing to memorialize a ruling, a party seeking an appeal should file notice of appeal within 30 days of the judgment, regardless of whether a draft order has been submitted.

For more information, please contact Donald Patrick Eckler at patrick.eckler@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.