{ "id": 150150, "name": "In re APPLICATION OF THE COUNTY COLLECTOR, for Judgment and Order of Sale Against Lands and Lots Returned Delinquent for Nonpayment of General Taxes for the Year 1990 and Prior Years (Dean L. Johnson et al., Petitioners-Appellees v. Donald D. Parisi, Respondent-Appellant)", "name_abbreviation": "Johnson v. Parisi", "decision_date": "1996-06-19", "docket_number": "No. 2\u201495\u20141026", "first_page": "467", "last_page": "480", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "281 Ill. App. 3d 467" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "40 Ill. 2d 62", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2855116 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "66", "parenthetical": "statute regulating admission to bail pending appeal held unconstitutional" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/40/0062-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 Ill. 2d 40", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3146148 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "48-50", "parenthetical": "statute mandating how long a trial judge must wait before proceeding with trial unduly infringed on the inherent power of court to control its docket" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/104/0040-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 Ill. App. 3d 666", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2926455 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "668", "parenthetical": "\"the jurisdiction of the trial court extends to all matters put in issue by the pleadings, and such jurisdiction ceases 30 days after the entry of the final judgment or decree\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/11/0666-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 Ill. App. 3d 101", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5584130 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "105" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/72/0101-01" ] }, { "cite": "223 Ill. App. 3d 510", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5257023 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "515" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/223/0510-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Ill. 2d 293", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2857305 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "301" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/40/0293-01" ] }, { "cite": "412 Ill. 145", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2665388 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1952, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "149" }, { "page": "149" }, { "page": "149-51" }, { "page": "150" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/412/0145-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 Ill. 2d 201", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3156128 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "208" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/102/0201-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 Ill. 2d 273", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5539451 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "281" }, { "page": "281" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/112/0273-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 Ill. 2d 465", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3192395 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "473" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/119/0465-01" ] }, { "cite": "344 Ill. 462", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5258885 ], "year": 1931, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "470" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/344/0462-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 Ill. 2d 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5454753 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "256" }, { "page": "260", "parenthetical": "statute regulating voir dire examination of jurors held void" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/69/0252-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 Ill. 2d 268", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5476013 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "274" }, { "page": "274" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/82/0268-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 Ill. 2d 180", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 222787 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "192", "parenthetical": "per curiam" }, { "page": "191-92" }, { "page": "192" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/167/0180-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Ill. App. 3d 737", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2746670 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Cruikshank v. Burroughs" }, { "page": "740" }, { "page": "740" }, { "page": "740" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/2/0737-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 Ill. App. 3d 70", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3504793 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "73", "parenthetical": "\"a tax deed may be challenged only by direct appeal or by a motion pursuant to section 2 - 1401\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/156/0070-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 Ill. App. 3d 644", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3617102 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "648", "parenthetical": "\"Absent fraud, tax deeds which are issued are incontestable except on direct appeal\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/171/0644-01" ] }, { "cite": "267 Ill. App. 3d 422", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 333174 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "424", "parenthetical": "\"It is well settled by statute and case law that tax deeds are incontestable except by direct appeal or by a petition for postjudgment relief pursuant to section 2 - 1401\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/267/0422-01" ] }, { "cite": "276 Ill. App. 3d 1084", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 927664 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1090", "parenthetical": "stating that language that tax deed was incontestable except by appeal not satisfied where the party did not file an appeal from the order directing the issuance of the tax deed" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/276/1084-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 Ill. 2d 31", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5427794 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "36", "parenthetical": "same" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/63/0031-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 Ill. 2d 159", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3114753 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "165-66", "parenthetical": "\"Under section 266 of the [Revenue] Act [of 1939] [the predecessor section and statute of section 22 - 45 of the Property Tax Code], tax deeds were incontestable except by direct appeal\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/96/0159-01" ] }, { "cite": "275 Ill. App. 3d 759", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 906765 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "761" }, { "page": "761" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/275/0759-01" ] }, { "cite": "275 Ill. App. 3d 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 906714 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "67" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/275/0064-01" ] }, { "cite": "166 Ill. 2d 165", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 198916 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "181" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/166/0165-01" ] }, { "cite": "166 Ill. 2d 507", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 198899 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "513" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/166/0507-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 Ill. 2d 161", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 222752 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "168" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/167/0161-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 Ill. App. 3d 419", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5373325 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "427" }, { "page": "427" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/261/0419-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 942, "char_count": 28531, "ocr_confidence": 0.785, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1186143303731562e-07, "percentile": 0.5728583017774396 }, "sha256": "cb674a5ba2cc84edb729513abdbda1734b05d7a920f34650c64da93d07e7749a", "simhash": "1:b90fb6555f5cd775", "word_count": 4908 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:18:30.087160+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re APPLICATION OF THE COUNTY COLLECTOR, for Judgment and Order of Sale Against Lands and Lots Returned Delinquent for Nonpayment of General Taxes for the Year 1990 and Prior Years (Dean L. Johnson et al., Petitioners-Appellees v. Donald D. Parisi, Respondent-Appellant)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE BOWMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nRespondent, Donald D. Parisi, filed an amended motion pursuant to section 2 \u2014 1203 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2\u2014 1203 (West 1994)) to vacate the trial court\u2019s order directing the county clerk to issue a tax deed. The tax purchaser, petitioner Dean L. Johnson, filed a motion to dismiss Parisi\u2019s amended motion. The trial court entered an order dismissing the amended motion. Parisi now appeals that order. We reverse and remand.\nBACKGROUND\nThe following facts may be gleaned from the record. Parisi owns certain property located in Hampshire, Illinois (subject property). The listed assessees of the subject property are Parisi and his deceased father, Frank Parisi, in care of their business, Dundee Realty.\nOn October 28, 1991, Johnson purchased a tax certificate for the subject property. On June 13, 1994, he filed a petition for a tax deed, which requested that the trial court enter an order directing the county clerk to issue a tax deed conveying the subject property to Johnson if the owed taxes were not redeemed within the time and manner provided by law. The period of redemption expired on October 19, 1994, at which time Parisi had not redeemed the owed taxes.\nOn October 26, 1994, Johnson filed an application for a tax deed, along with a supporting affidavit. That same day the trial court entered an order directing the county clerk to issue a tax deed to Johnson for the subject property. However, this order contained an error in the legal description of the subject property. Consequently, on January 31, 1995, Johnson filed an amended petition for a tax deed and a motion for leave to file an amended order for a tax deed.\nOn January 31, 1995, the trial court entered an amended order directing the county clerk to issue a tax deed to Johnson for the subject property. On or about February 2, 1995, the county clerk issued a tax deed to Johnson, which he recorded on February 7, 1995. On February 9, 1995, Johnson conveyed the subject property to Rita Dixon Nielsen by warranty deed, which Nielsen recorded on February 16, 1995.\nOn March 1, 1995, Parisi filed a motion to vacate the judgment, the amended order, and the tax deed pursuant to section 2 \u2014 1203 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 1203 (West 1994)) and section 22 \u2014 45 of the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/22 \u2014 45 (West 1994)). On March 24, 1995, Parisi filed an amended motion to vacate the judgment, the amended order, and the tax deed, and to quiet title. The amended motion also added Nielsen as a party in interest.\nOn April 10, 1995, Johnson filed a motion to dismiss Parisi\u2019s amended motion. Johnson\u2019s motion alleged that tax deeds are incontestable under section 22 \u2014 45 of the Property Tax Code except by filing an appeal or a petition under section 2 \u2014 1401 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 1401 (West 1994)). Johnson requested that the trial court dismiss Parisi\u2019s motion because Parisi did not contest the issuance of the tax deed by either of these methods. On July 12, 1995, after hearing arguments on the matter, the trial court entered an order granting Johnson\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nParisi then filed a notice of appeal of the trial court\u2019s order. The notice of appeal was file stamped August 14, 1995. The notice of filing attached to the notice of appeal states that the notice of appeal was filed with the clerk of the circuit court of Kane County on August 11, 1995. The certificate of service attached to the notice of appeal states that Parisi\u2019s attorney niailed a copy of the notice of appeal to Johnson on August 14, 1995. On February 8, 1996, Parisi filed an application to amend his notice of appeal and to file an amended notice of appeal, which this court granted on February 22, 1996. The certificate of mailing attached to the amended notice of appeal states that Pari-si\u2019s attorney served the original notice of appeal upon the clerk of the court of Kane County by mailing the document on August 11, 1995.\nDISCUSSION\nParisi has two contentions on appeal: (1) section 22 \u2014 45 of the Property Tax Code permits a party to contest the issuance of a tax deed by filing a motion under section 2 \u2014 1203 of the Code; and (2) Johnson was not entitled to the issuance of a tax deed for the subject property because he failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/22 \u2014 10, 22 \u2014 15, 22 \u2014 20, 22 \u2014 25 (West 1994)).\nPreliminarily, we must determine whether this court has jurisdiction over the appeal. Johnson claims that Parisi did not file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the trial court\u2019s order dismissing Pa-risi\u2019s amended section 2 \u2014 1203 motion. As such, Johnson argues, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. We disagree.\nSupreme Court Rule 303(a)(1) (155 Ill. 2d R. 303(a)(1)) provides:\n\"Except as provided in paragraph (b) below, the notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the circuit court within 30 days after the entry of the final judgment appealed from, or, if a timely post-trial motion directed against the judgment is filed, whether in a jury or a nonjury case, within 30 days after the entry of the order disposing of the last pending post-judgment motion.\u201d 155 Ill. 2d R. 303(a)(1).\nRule 303(a)(1) provides no definition of the words \"filed with the clerk of the circuit court.\u201d However, Supreme Court Rule 373 (155 Ill. 2d R. 373) provides:\n\"Unless received after the due date, the time of filing records, briefs or other papers required to be filed within a specified time will be the date on which they are actually received by the clerk of the reviewing court. If received after the due date, the time of mailing shall be deemed the time of filing. Proof of mailing shall be as provided in Rule 12(b)(3). This rule also applies to the notice of appeal filed in the trial court.\u201d 155 Ill. 2d R. 373.\nThus, notices of appeal mailed within the 30-day period and received thereafter by the clerk of the circuit court are timely filed. Davis v. John Crane, Inc., 261 Ill. App. 3d 419, 427 (1994).\nOur review of the record leads us to conclude that Parisi filed his notice of appeal within 30 days of the8 order dismissing his amended section 2 \u2014 1203 motion. To be timely filed, Parisi had to file a notice of appeal by August 11, 1995, which was the thirtieth day after the trial court\u2019s order dismissing Parisi\u2019s amended motion. Based on the record before us, we are satisfied that Parisi filed the notice of appeal on August 11, 1995, by mailing it to the clerk of the circuit court of Kane County. Although the original notice of appeal was file stamped August 14, 1995, the notice of filing attached to the notice of appeal states that it was filed on August 11, 1995, and the certificate of mailing attached to the amended notice of appeal states that the original notice of appeal was mailed to the clerk of the court on August 11, 1995. Because Johnson apparently does not dispute that Parisi mailed the notice of appeal on August 11, 1995, we deem the notice of appeal timely filed. See Davis, 261 Ill. App. 3d at 427. Thus, we have jurisdiction over the appeal.\nI\nWe now proceed to the merits of the appeal. Parisi\u2019s first contention is that section 22 \u2014 45 of the Property Tax Code permits a party to contest the issuance of a tax deed by filing a motion under section 2 \u2014 1203 of the Code. Section 22 \u2014 45 of the Property Tax Code provides in pertinent part:\n\"Tax deeds issued under Section 22 \u2014 35 are incontestable except by appeal from the order of the court directing the county clerk to issue the tax deed. However, relief from such order may be had under Section 2 \u2014 1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the same manner and to the same extent as may be had under that Section with respect to final orders and judgments in other proceedings.\u201d 35 ILCS 200/22 \u2014 45 (West 1994).\nSection 2 \u2014 1203 of the Code provides:\n\"(a) In all cases tried without a jury, any party may, within 30 days after the entry of the judgment or within any further time the court may allow within the 30 days or any extensions thereof, file a motion for a rehearing, or a retrial, or modification of the judgment or to vacate the judgment or for other relief.\n(b) A motion filed in apt time stays enforcement of the judgment.\u201d 735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 1203 (West 1994).\nThe Property Tax Code does not define the phrase \"by appeal\u201d in section 22 \u2014 45. Parisi reads this phrase as permitting a party to \"appeal\u201d the issuance of a tax deed to the trial court that originally ordered the issuance of the tax deed. Parisi maintains that section 22 \u2014 45 does not indicate that the legislature intended to depart from regular civil practice regarding the trial court\u2019s ability to entertain motions brought under section 2 \u2014 1203.\nJohnson responds that the plain language of section 22 \u2014 45 provides that the issuance of a tax deed is incontestable except by appealing the trial court\u2019s order to a reviewing court or by filing a petition under section 2 \u2014 1401 of the Code. Because Parisi did not contest the issuance of the tax deed in these methods, Johnson reasons that the trial court properly granted his motion to dismiss Parisi\u2019s amended section 2 \u2014 1203 motion.\nWell-established rules of statutory construction guide our resolution of whether a party may contest the issuance of a tax deed by filing a section 2 \u2014 1203 motion to vacate the tax deed. The cardinal goal of statutory construction, to which all other goals are subordinate, is to ascertain and give effect to the true intent and meaning of the legislature. In re Application for Judgment & Sale of Delinquent Properties for the Tax Year 1989, 167 Ill. 2d 161, 168 (1995). The language of the statute is the best indication of legislative intent. Bogseth v. Emanuel, 166 Ill. 2d 507, 513 (1995). If the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, courts must give effect to it without considering additional indicia of legislative intent. First of America Bank, Rockford, N.A. v. Netsch, 166 Ill. 2d 165, 181 (1995). Courts are not at liberty to depart from the plain language and meaning of the statute by reading into it exceptions, limitations, or conditions that the legislature did not express. Klem v. First National Bank, 275 Ill. App. 3d 64, 67 (1995). Consistent with this approach is the rule of statutory construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Under this maxim, a statute which specifies one exception to a general rule excludes other exceptions by implication. Cie v. Comdata Network, Inc., 275 Ill. App. 3d 759, 761 (1995).\nApplying these principles to the case at bar, we believe the plain meaning of section 22 \u2014 45 is clear: the issuance of a tax deed is incontestable except by appealing to a reviewing court or by filing a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition. As noted, the issuance of a tax deed is incontestable except \"by appeal from the order of the court directing the county clerk to issue the tax deed.\u201d (Emphasis added.) 35 ILCS 200/22 \u2014 45 (West 1994). As the word is commonly understood, a party \"appeals\u201d a trial court\u2019s order to a reviewing court. See Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 96 (6th ed. 1990) (defining \"appeal\u201d as \"[rjesort to a superior (i.e. appellate) court to review the decision of an inferior (i.e. trial) court or administrative agency\u201d); Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary 103 (1986) (defining \"appeal\u201d as \"a legal proceeding by which a case is brought from a lower to a higher court for rehearing\u201d). A party does not \"appeal\u201d a trial court\u2019s order to the trial court; rather, he asks the trial court to modify or vacate its order. Based on the clear and unambiguous language in section 22 \u2014 45, we conclude that the legislature intended for the issuance of tax deeds to be incontestable except by appeal to a reviewing court or a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition.\nThis conclusion is consistent with the rule of statutory construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Section 22 \u2014 45 generally states that the issuance of a tax deed is incontestable. The section specifies two exceptions to this rule: (1) \"by appeal[ing]\u201d from the order of the court directing the county clerk to issue the tax deed; and (2) by filing a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition. See 35 ILCS 200/22 \u2014 45 (West 1994). By specifying only two exceptions to the general rule that the issuance of a tax deed is incontestable, we believe that other exceptions, such as filing a section 2 \u2014 1203 motion to vacate the tax deed, are not contemplated or permitted by the section. See Cie, 275 Ill. App. 3d at 761.\nWe note that, although no Illinois case has addressed whether section 22 \u2014 45 permits a party to file a section 2 \u2014 1203 motion to contest the issuance of a tax deed, Illinois courts have routinely noted that the issuance of a tax deed is incontestable except by direct appeal or a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition. See Vulcan Materials Co. v. Bee Construction, 96 Ill. 2d 159, 165-66 (1983) (\"Under section 266 of the [Revenue] Act [of 1939] [the predecessor section and statute of section 22 \u2014 45 of the Property Tax Code], tax deeds were incontestable except by direct appeal\u201d); Smith v. D.R.G., Inc., 63 Ill. 2d 31, 36 (1976) (same); In re Application for Judgment & Sale by the County Treasurer & Ex Officio County Collector, 276 Ill. App. 3d 1084, 1090 (1995) (stating that language that tax deed was incontestable except by appeal not satisfied where the party did not file an appeal from the order directing the issuance of the tax deed); Wilder v. Finnegan, 267 Ill. App. 3d 422, 424 (1994) (\"It is well settled by statute and case law that tax deeds are incontestable except by direct appeal or by a petition for postjudgment relief pursuant to section 2 \u2014 1401\u201d); In re Application of the County Treasurer & Ex Officio County Collector, 171 Ill. App. 3d 644, 648 (1987) (\"Absent fraud, tax deeds which are issued are incontestable except on direct appeal\u201d); Elliott v. Johnson, 156 Ill. App. 3d 70, 73 (1987) (\"a tax deed may be challenged only by direct appeal or by a motion pursuant to section 2 \u2014 1401\u201d).\nWe are aware of Parisi\u2019s reliance on In re Application of the County Collector for Judgment of Sale Against Lands & Lots Returned for Non-Payment of General Taxes & Petition of Robert Burroughs for Tax Deed, 2 Ill. App. 3d 737 (1971) (Cruikshank v. Burroughs), as authority for the proposition that he could contest the issuance of the tax deed by filing a section 2 \u2014 1203 motion. In Cruikshank, the trial court ordered the issuance of a tax deed to the petitioner. The property owners contested this order by filing a petition under section 2 \u2014 1203\u2019s 1969 counterpart, section 68.3 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 110, par. 68.3). Cruikshank, 2 Ill. App. 3d at 740. Section 68.3 provided that, in all nonjury cases, any party could file within 30 days of the entry of the judgment a motion to modify or vacate the judgment. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 110, par. 68.3. The trial court granted the petition. On appeal, the Cruikshank court \"observed\u201d that the property owners filed their petition under section 68.3 rather than section 72, the predecessor to section 2 \u2014 1401 of the Code. 2 Ill. App. 3d at 740. The court approved of this tactic and permitted the petition to stand, apparently because there was \"ample evidence\u201d that the trial court erred in its determination that all notices as required by law were given to the property owners. Cruikshank, 2 Ill. App. 3d at 740.\nWe decline to follow Cruikshank to the extent it holds that a party may contest the issuance of a tax deed by filing a section 2 \u2014 1203 motion. At the time of the tax deed proceedings in Cruikshank, section 266 of the Revenue Act of 1939 (Revenue Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 120, par. 747), the predecessor section and statute to section 22 \u2014 45 of the Property Tax Code, provided that \"[t]ax deeds issued pursuant to this Section are incontestable except by appeal from the order of the court directing the county clerk to issue the tax deed.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 120, par. 747. Thus, the rules relating to the issuance of tax deeds which were in effect during Cruikshank are essentially identical to those in effect in the present case. Compare Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 120, par. 747 with 35 ILCS 200/ 22 \u2014 45 (West 1994). Cruikshank, however, does not mention these rules or their effect on whether a party may contest the issuance of a tax deed by filing a section 68.3 (or section 2 \u2014 1203) motion to vacate the tax deed. As noted, we believe that the language in section 22 \u2014 45 does not permit a party to contest the issuance of a tax deed by filing a section 2 \u2014 1203 motion. We therefore decline to follow Cruikshank because there is no indication that it was aware of and considered the similar language contained in section 22 \u2014 45\u2019s predecessor, section 266 of the Revenue Act.\nOur analysis, however, does not end here. As we construe section 22 \u2014 45, a trial court is essentially prohibited from modifying or vacating its order directing the county clerk to issue a tax deed unless in response to a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition filed 30 days after the entry of the order. For all practical purposes, section 22 \u2014 45 divests the trial court of jurisdiction over the matter once it has entered its order, in apparent conflict with the general rule that the trial court retains jurisdiction to vacate or modify its own orders for 30 days after it has been entered. Thus, we must address an issue not raised by the parties in the trial court or on appeal: whether the legislature has the authority to divest a trial court of jurisdiction once it has ordered the county clerk to issue the tax deed. In \"legalese,\u201d the issue before us is whether section 22 \u2014 45 of the Property Tax Code, which provides that the issuance of tax deeds is incontestable except by appeal to a reviewing court or by a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition, violates the separation of powers doctrine.\nThe principle of separation of powers is embodied in article II, section 1, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 (Constitution), which provides: \"The legislative, executive and judicial branches are separate. No branch shall exercise powers properly belonging to another.\u201d Ill. Const. 1970, art. II, \u00a7 1. The separation of powers doctrine forbids one branch of government from exercising powers properly belonging to another branch. Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts v. State & Municipal Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Union, Local 726, 167 Ill. 2d 180, 192 (1995) (per curiam).\nThe source of judicial power is founded in article VI, section 1, of the Constitution, which states: \"The judicial power is vested in a Supreme Court, an Appellate Court and Circuit Courts.\u201d Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, \u00a7 1. All judicial power is exclusively and exhaustively granted to the courts. People v. Cox, 82 Ill. 2d 268, 274 (1980). If the power is judicial in character, the legislature is expressly prohibited from exercising it. People v. Jackson, 69 Ill. 2d 252, 256 (1977).\nThe Constitution does not expressly define which powers are judicial or, for that matter, which are legislative or executive. The supreme court, however, has held that judicial power includes \" 'all powers necessary for complete performance of the judicial functions.\u2019 \u201d Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, 167 Ill. 2d at 191-92, quoting People ex rel. Illinois State Bar Ass\u2019n v. Peoples Stock Yards State Bank, 344 Ill. 462, 470 (1931). To that end, judicial power includes not only the power to hear and decide cases, but also general administrative and supervisory authority over the courts of this State. Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, 167 Ill. 2d at 192.\nThe separation of powers doctrine, however, does not contemplate that each branch of government exercise its powers in complete isolation from the other two branches; rather, it contemplates a government of separate branches having certain shared or overlapping powers. People v. Walker, 119 Ill. 2d 465, 473 (1988). Accordingly, the constitutional authority to promulgate procedural rules, in certain circumstances, can be concurrent between the judiciary and the legislature. O\u2019Connell v. St. Francis Hospital, 112 Ill. 2d 273, 281 (1986). Although the legislature has the power to enact laws concerning judicial practice, these laws may not conflict with a supreme court rule (Cox, 82 Ill. 2d at 274) or unduly infringe on the inherent power of the judiciary (People v. Taylor, 102 Ill. 2d 201, 208 (1984); Agran v. Checker Taxi Co., 412 Ill. 145, 149 (1952)).\nOur supreme court has held that the statutory procedures related to the issuance of tax deeds do not violate the separation of powers doctrine. See People ex rel. County Collector v. Jeri, Ltd., 40 Ill. 2d 293, 301 (1968). However, whether section 22 \u2014 45\u2019s language that the issuance of a tax deed is incontestable except by appeal to a reviewing court or by a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition violates the separation of powers doctrine appears to be an issue of first impression under Illinois law. Despite the absence of specific authority on this issue, we conclude, after reviewing the separation of powers doctrine, that section 22 \u2014 45 both conflicts with Supreme Court Rule 303 (155 Ill. 2d R. 303) and unduly infringes on the inherent power of the judiciary.\nFirst, we believe that section 22 \u2014 45 conflicts with Supreme Court Rule 303(a)(1) (155 Ill. 2d R. 303(a)(1)). Rule 303(a)(1) provides:\n\"Except as provided in paragraph (b) below, the notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the circuit court within 30 days after the entry of the final judgment appealed from, or, if a timely post-trial motion directed against the judgment is filed, whether in a jury or a nonjury case, within 30 days after the entry of the order disposing of the last pending post-judgment motion.\u201d 155 Ill. 2d R. 303(a)(1).\nAdmittedly, Rule 303(a)(1) does not expressly state that a party has the right to file a post-trial motion within 30 days after the entry of the final judgment. Nevertheless, under our jurisprudence, a trial court loses jurisdiction over a matter once 30 days have passed if during that time neither party takes any \"legally proper action,\u201d such as the filing of a post-judgment motion, which delays the running of the 30-day period, or the filing of a notice of appeal. In re Marriage of Agustsson, 223 Ill. App. 3d 510, 515 (1992); see 155 Ill. 2d R. 303(a)(1). In other words, if neither party takes any \"legally proper action,\u201d the trial court retains jurisdiction to reconsider its judgment and orders for 30 days. Weilmuenster v. H.H. Hall Construction Co., 72 Ill. App. 3d 101, 105 (1979); see People ex rel. Barrett v. Board of Commissioners, 11 Ill. App. 3d 666, 668 (1973) (\"the jurisdiction of the trial court extends to all matters put in issue by the pleadings, and such jurisdiction ceases 30 days after the entry of the final judgment or decree\u201d).\nAs noted earlier, section 22 \u2014 45 provides that the only direct attack permitted on a trial court\u2019s order directing the county clerk to issue a tax deed is by appeal to a reviewing court. Section 22 \u2014 45, therefore, essentially divests the trial court of jurisdiction over the matter once it has entered its order. By divesting the trial court of jurisdiction to reconsider its order, section 22 \u2014 45 directly conflicts with Rule 303(a)(1) and our jurisprudence. Since a supreme court rule prevails over a conflicting statute (see O\u2019Connell, 112 Ill. 2d at 281), we hold that section 22 \u2014 45, insofar as it restricts a party from directly attacking the trial court\u2019s order except by appeal to a reviewing court, violates the separation of powers doctrine and thus is unconstitutional. As such, the trial court erred in granting Johnson\u2019s motion to dismiss Parisi\u2019s amended section 2 \u2014 1203 motion to vacate the tax deed.\nWe also believe that section 22 \u2014 45 unduly infringes on the inherent power of the judiciary. In Agran v. Checker Taxi Co., 412 Ill. 145 (1952), our supreme court held:\n\"The General Assembly has power to enact laws governing judicial practice only where they do not unduly infringe upon the inherent powers of the judiciary. [Citation.] Were this not true, a basic tenet of our democratic form of government would be destroyed, and the relevant constitutional provisions rendered nugatory. It is the undisputed duty of the court to protect its judicial powers from encroachment by legislative enactments, and thus preserve an independent judicial department.\u201d 412 Ill. at 149.\nIn light of these principles, our supreme court has not hesitated to invalidate laws which it deemed unduly infringed on the inherent powers of the judiciary. See, e.g, People v. Flores, 104 Ill. 2d 40, 48-50 (1984) (statute mandating how long a trial judge must wait before proceeding with trial unduly infringed on the inherent power of court to control its docket); Jackson, 69 Ill. 2d at 260 (statute regulating voir dire examination of jurors held void); People ex rel. Stamos v. Jones, 40 Ill. 2d 62, 66 (1968) (statute regulating admission to bail pending appeal held unconstitutional); Agran, 412 Ill. at 149-51 (statute restricting the power of a court to dismiss an ex parte action for lack of prosecution, thereby limiting the court\u2019s authority to render a judgment, held unconstitutional).\nIn our view, section 22 \u2014 45 unduly infringes on the inherent power of courts to correct their orders directing the county clerk to issue a tax deed within 30 days of its entry. Even if Rule 303 does not expressly provide so, trial courts nevertheless possess the inherent authority to reconsider their orders for 30 days after their entry. Trial courts are not infallible, and, for whatever reason, they may improperly enter an order directing the county clerk to issue a tax deed. Just as the power to render an order is one of the most important inherent judicial powers of the courts (Agran, 412 Ill. at 150), so too is the power to correct that order within 30 days. To hold otherwise would be to accept the absurd proposition that trial courts are powerless to correct their orders, even when it is patently obvious that such orders were improperly entered. Thus, we conclude that section 22 \u2014 45 unduly infringes on the inherent power of the courts to correct their orders within 30 days after their entry. Accordingly, section 22 \u2014 45 violates the separation of powers doctrine and is thereby unconstitutional. The trial court therefore erred in granting Johnson\u2019s motion to dismiss Parisi\u2019s amended section 2 \u2014 1203 motion to vacate the tax deed.\nII\nParisi\u2019s second contention is that Johnson was not entitled to the issuance of a tax deed for the subject property because he failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Property Tax Code. See 35 ILCS 200/22 \u2014 10, 22 \u2014 15, 22 \u2014 20, 22 \u2014 25 (West 1994). Parisi claims that Johnson did not comply with the notice requirements because (1) he failed to file a report of proceedings; (2) he effected personal service on the county clerk rather than Parisi; and (3) he failed to exercise due diligence in locating Parisi.\nWe decline to address this contention. In response to Parisi\u2019s amended section 2 \u2014 1203 motion to vacate the tax deed, Johnson filed a motion to dismiss. Johnson has not, as yet, answered the allegations contained in Parisi\u2019s amended motion. Moreover, if Johnson disputes the factual allegations in the amended motion, the trial court will presumably conduct a hearing on the matter. Based on these facts, we conclude that it is improper for this court to decide, as a matter of law, that Johnson failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Property Tax Code. We therefore remand this matter to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Kane County is reversed, and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nGEIGER and THOMAS, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE BOWMAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Dana A. Parisi, of Law Offices of Dana A. Parisi, of Chicago, for appellant.", "John Robert Barr, of Barr & Barr, of Decatur, for appellee.", "Rita Dixon Nielsen, of Waterman, appellee pro se." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re APPLICATION OF THE COUNTY COLLECTOR, for Judgment and Order of Sale Against Lands and Lots Returned Delinquent for Nonpayment of General Taxes for the Year 1990 and Prior Years (Dean L. Johnson et al., Petitioners-Appellees v. Donald D. Parisi, Respondent-Appellant).\nSecond District\nNo. 2\u201495\u20141026\nOpinion filed June 19, 1996.\nDana A. Parisi, of Law Offices of Dana A. Parisi, of Chicago, for appellant.\nJohn Robert Barr, of Barr & Barr, of Decatur, for appellee.\nRita Dixon Nielsen, of Waterman, appellee pro se." }, "file_name": "0467-01", "first_page_order": 485, "last_page_order": 498 }