Blog

The Takeaway

An Illinois appellate court recently ruled[1] that circuit courts are automatically revested with jurisdiction on the date the appellate court issues its mandate, not the date the mandate is filed with the circuit court.

(Note that conflicting appellate authority still exists, and the Illinois Supreme Court has not specifically weighed in on this issue.)

Introduction

Mandates are procedural devices whereby appellate courts transmit their judgments to the trial court and revest the trial court with jurisdiction. Illinois Supreme Court Rules 368 and 369 require appellate court clerks to transmit the mandate to the circuit court. Circuit court clerks must then “promptly” file the mandate upon receiving it. Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 369(a).

But what happens if the circuit court clerk fails to file the mandate? Does jurisdiction ever revest to the trial court? If so, when?

Illinois’ appellate courts have addressed this issue before, but the opinions conflict. For example, in three cases,[2] courts held that the trial court regains jurisdiction as soon as the appellate mandate is issued, regardless of whether the parties act on it. However, in another case,[3] the court held that jurisdiction revests with the circuit court only when the circuit court’s clerk files the mandate.

In Law Offices, the First District Appellate Court recognized this conflict. Relying on the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in PSL Realty Co. v. Granite Investment Co. 86 Ill. 2d 291, 305 (1981) as instructive authority, the Law Offices court held that the better view is that jurisdiction revests in the circuit court on the date the appellate court issues its mandate, not the date the circuit clerk files it.

Case Background

In Law Offices, the trial court denied plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff appealed. The appellate court vacated the trial court’s denial and remanded the case to the trial court for plaintiff to file an attorney fee petition.

The appellate court issued and simultaneously transmitted its mandate to the circuit court on January 5, 2022. However, the circuit court clerk failed to file the mandate as required by Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 369.

More than a year later (in March 2023), plaintiff filed a petition for attorney fees in the trial court. The trial court denied the petition for want of prosecution.

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal, arguing that because the circuit court clerk never filed the prior appeal’s mandate, the circuit court was never revested with jurisdiction and thus the dismissal order was void.

Appellate Holding and Analysis

The First District Appellate Court disagreed with plaintiff and held that the circuit court’s dismissal order was not void for lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that the issuance and simultaneous transmittal of the appellate court mandate to the circuit court revests the circuit court with jurisdiction, not the filing of the mandate in the circuit court.

The Law Offices court relied in part on PSL Realty Co. In that case, the Illinois Supreme Court stated that “the mandate of a court of review is the transmittal of the judgment of that court to the circuit court, and revests the circuit court with jurisdiction.” Law Offices, 2025 IL App (1st) 231573, ¶ 11 (quoting PSL Realty Co., 86 Ill. 2d at 304-05).

In reaching its decision, the appellate court reasoned that if jurisdiction only revests upon the filing of the mandate by the circuit court clerk, and the circuit clerk errs and fails to file the mandate, litigants would be caught in a “jurisdictional no man's land”: their case would be beyond the reach of the appellate court (because issuance of the mandate divests the appellate court of jurisdiction), yet they couldn’t seek relief in the circuit court (because the mandate was not filed). Law Offices, 2025 IL App (1st) 231573, ¶ 14.

The Court further reasoned that even absent error, delays typically occur between when mandates are issued and when they are filed in the circuit court. During that time, circumstances at the trial court level could change (e.g., the parties could settle or emergent issues could arise). If jurisdiction didn’t revest until the circuit clerk filed the mandate, the trial court couldn’t intervene. In contrast, “Where jurisdiction revests in the circuit court upon issuance of the mandate, the parties are able to seek circuit court intervention to address any exigencies.” Id. at ¶ 15.

After deciding the jurisdiction question, the First District nevertheless sided with the plaintiff and reversed the circuit court’s dismissal for want of prosecution. The court found the refusal to reinstate the case unreasonable, citing the strong preference for resolving cases on the merits, the circuit clerk’s failure to file the mandate, and the lack of prejudice to the defendant. Id. at ¶ 24.

[1] Law Offices of Brendan R. Appel, Ltd. v. Georgia’s Rest. & Pancake House, 2025 IL App (1st) 231573.

[2] National Underground Construction Co. v. E.A. Cox Co., 273 Ill. App. 3d 830, 835 (1st Dist. 1995), NCD, Inc. v. Kemel, 308 Ill. App. 3d 814, 817 (2nd Dist. 1999), and Village of Bolingbrook v. Illinois-American Water Co., 2019 IL App (3d) 170478, ¶ 15.

[3] Bank of Viola v. Nestrick, 94 Ill. App. 3d 511, 515 (3rd Dist. 1981).