Background
Patrick Mathis and Thomas Stolar, individually and on behalf of Trout Lake Fishing Club, LLC, and Otukamamoan Lake Holding Company, sued Richard Stotlar, John Mann, William Stotlar, and Jeff Gilter. The six-count amended complaint asserted contract, fiduciary-duty, and tortious-interference claims arising from an operating agreement and Canadian real property associated with the fishing club. The plaintiffs also sought injunctive relief concerning ownership and transfer of the property.
The defendants moved to dismiss and transfer venue, arguing among other things that the dispute concerned Canadian property, that Canadian law applied, and that venue was improper in St. Clair County. After an October 6, 2025, hearing, the circuit court orally rejected the jurisdiction and venue arguments. Its written order said the motions were denied and that a “full order” would follow. A later order required the parties to submit an agreed formal order by November 19, 2025, but no such order was filed. The defendants nevertheless petitioned for leave to appeal, and the appellate court initially granted leave.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court dismissed the interlocutory appeal as premature. Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 272, when a judge requires submission of a formal written judgment, the ruling becomes final only when the signed judgment is filed. Until then, the ruling cannot be appealed.
The October 6 order expressly contemplated that a full order would follow, and the November 5 order confirmed that the circuit court required an agreed formal order. The November 5 order’s statement that the October 6 order would remain the “standing order” if the parties failed to agree did not make that earlier order final because it still stated that a full order was forthcoming.
Because the parties never submitted an agreed order, the circuit court was required to file its own signed written order reflecting its October 6 pronouncements. No final order existed when the defendants sought review, so the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to reach their challenges to the denial of dismissal or transfer. It remanded for issuance of the formal written order required by Rule 272.
Key Takeaways
- An oral ruling and a written notation that a fuller order will follow do not constitute an appealable order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 272.
- A direction that an earlier order will remain the “standing order” does not create finality when that earlier order expressly anticipates a later formal order.
- A petition for leave to appeal filed before the required signed written order is entered is premature and does not confer appellate jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that appellate deadlines and jurisdiction turn on whether the trial court has completed the formal process required by Rule 272, not merely on whether it announced its ruling. Litigants should confirm that the contemplated signed order has actually been filed before seeking appellate review.
The appellate court did not decide whether St. Clair County was a proper venue or whether the circuit court correctly rejected the defendants’ dismissal arguments. Those issues remain unresolved pending entry of a formal written order and any subsequent, timely appellate proceedings.