Find Legal Information

Docket No. 92338-Agenda 16-March 2002.

BRENDA ROTH, Ind. Adm'r of the Estate of Angela Roth, 
Deceased, Appellee, v. ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE
COMPANY, Appellant.

Opinion filed December 5, 2002.

JUSTICE FREEMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Brenda Roth, acting as the administrator of the estateof her daughter, Angela, brought a declaratory judgment action inthe circuit court of St. Clair County against defendant, IllinoisFarmers Insurance Company. The circuit court found in plaintiff'sfavor, and defendant appealed. The appellate court affirmed thecircuit court's judgment (324 Ill. App. 3d 293), and wesubsequently allowed defendant's petition for leave to appeal (177Ill. 2d R. 315(a)). For the reasons that follow, we hold that leaveto appeal in this matter was improvidently granted and dismiss theappeal.

BACKGROUND

Due to our disposition of the case, we will detail only thosefacts necessary to an understanding of our holding. The appellatecourt issued its opinion in this case on August 7, 2001. On August24, 2001, defendant filed a document, in the appellate court,entitled "Affidavit of Intent to File Petition For Leave to Appeal."The document reads as follows:

"Comes now Defendant/Appellant, Illinois FarmersInsurance Company, and hereby states it intends to file aPetition for Leave to Appeal with the Illinois SupremeCourt pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 315.

Respectfully submitted,

Law Offices of Morgan & Associates"

The document was signed by one of the law firm's attorneys andwas accompanied by a certificate of service. Defendant thereafterfiled in this court its petition for leave to appeal on September 11,2001. Plaintiff filed a response, and we granted leave to appeal onDecember 5, 2001.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff contends that this appeal must be dismissed becausedefendant failed to comply with the requirements of SupremeCourt Rule 315(b). Plaintiff argues that the affidavit of intent filedby defendant was a nullity and that, as a result, the petition forleave to appeal was untimely. Defendant, on the other hand,responds that, because the affidavit required under Rule 315(b) isone designed to "serve as notice of an action," the deficiencies ofits affidavit of intent are inconsequential. Defendant also contendsthis issue is moot given the fact that this court has granted leave toappeal.

We begin our analysis with Rule 315(b), which states that

"[u]nless a timely petition for rehearing is filed in theAppellate Court, a party seeking leave to appeal must filethe petition for leave in the Supreme Court within 21 daysafter entry of the judgment of the Appellate Court, orwithin the same 21 days file with the Appellate Court anaffidavit of intent to file a petition for leave, and file thepetition within 35 days after the entry of such judgment."(Emphasis added.) 177 Ill. 2d R. 315(b).

We interpret a supreme court rule in the same manner in which weinterpret a statute, namely, by ascertaining and giving effect to theintent of the drafter. In re Estate of Rennick, 181 Ill. 2d 395, 404(1998). The most reliable indicator of intent is the language used,which should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Rennick,181 Ill. 2d at 405. When the language is clear and unambiguous,we will apply the language used without resort to further aids ofconstruction. Rennick, 181 Ill. 2d at 405.

In the case of Rule 315(b), the import of the language cannotbe clearer-the rule requires that an "affidavit" be filed in order tosecure a 35-day period in which to file a petition for leave toappeal in this court. Therefore, we must determine whetherdefendant filed an "affidavit" in the appellate court as iscontemplated by Rule 315(b).

Although the term "affidavit" is not defined within Rule 315,Illinois courts have defined the term in consistent fashion for over100 years. For example, in Harris v. Lester, 80 Ill. 307, 311(1875), this court noted that "[a]n affidavit is simply a declaration,on oath, in writing, sworn to by a party before some person whohas authority under the law to administer oaths. It does not dependon the fact whether it is entitled in any cause or in any particularway. Without any caption whatever, it is nevertheless anaffidavit." See also Figge v. Rowlen, 185 Ill. 234, 238 (1900)(citing Harris definition with approval); People ex rel. McCline v.Meyering, 356 Ill. 210, 214 (1934) (defining affidavit as adeclaration on oath, in writing, sworn to by a party before someperson who has authority, under the law, to administer oaths).More recently, our appellate court has noted that " '[a]n affidavitis simply a declaration, on oath, in writing sworn to before someperson who has authority under the law to administer oaths. Awriting which does not appear to have been sworn to before anyofficer does not constitute an affidavit.' " People v. Smith, 22 Ill.App. 3d 377, 380 (1974), quoting 2 Ill. L. & Prac. Affidavits