In Owens v. Berkshire Nursing & Rehab Center, 2026 IL App (1st) 241662 (Apr. 28, 2026), the First District vacated two orders and clarified that trial courts retain jurisdiction to allow amendments to a timely filed post-judgment motion until that motion is decided.
The case arose from the death of Tempie Owens, a nursing-home resident with severe hypothyroidism and dementia, whose estate alleged wrongful death, medical negligence, and Nursing Home Care Act violations against Berkshire Nursing & Rehab Center and a contracted nurse practitioner, Lory Arquilla-Maltby. A jury returned verdicts for both defendants, and the court entered a single judgment on August 8, 2023. Within 30 days, the plaintiff filed a post-judgment motion for a new trial focused solely on Berkshire and the Nursing Home Care Act claims . Afterward, the plaintiff sought leave to amend that motion to add evidentiary-error arguments pertaining to Arquilla-Maltby; the trial court denied leave, concluding it lacked jurisdiction because more than 30 days had passed from final judgment.
The issue before the appellate court was whether the circuit court had jurisdiction and discretion to allow an amendment to a timely filed post-judgment motion before ruling on that motion, even if more than 30 days had elapsed from entry of final judgment.
The appellate court held that the circuit court retained jurisdiction over the timely post-judgment motion and had discretion to permit an amendment until the motion was decided; by concluding it lacked jurisdiction, the court failed to exercise its discretion . Accordingly, the appellate court vacated the order denying leave to amend and, as a consequence, also vacated the order denying the motion for a new trial, remanding for the trial court to exercise its discretion on the amendment request.
The opinion confirms that amendments to timely post-judgment motions are not “successive” motions and remain within the trial court’s discretion until the original motion is ruled upon, preserving flexibility to address additional issues without triggering jurisdictional bars. Because the trial court did not exercise that discretion here, further proceedings are required, and any renewed appeal may be expedited with potential adoption of prior briefs.
Written by: Peter M. Storm