Reversing a trial court ruling allowing a party to withdraw its rejection of a court-annexed arbitration, an Illinois appellate court held that Supreme Court Rule 93 does not permit a party to withdraw its rejection of an arbitration award.

In Stemple v. Pickerill, No. 2-07-0151, 2007 WL 4562817 (Ill. App. Ct. Dec. 21, 2007), the Stemples sued the Pickerills, owners of Charley's Auto Service, alleging they had sold an inoperable engine despite their warranties and representations that it would work. Specifically, the Stemples sought $25,000 for breach of express warranty (count I), breach of implied warranties (count II), violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (count III), and common law fraud (count IV).

The Court set the case for court appointed mandatory arbitration in January 2006. On April 20, 2006, the arbitrators ruled in the Stemples' favor on count I and awarded $8,149.50. The arbitrators found in the Pickerills' favor on counts II, III, and IV. On May 11, 2006, the Pickerills filed a rejection of the arbitration award.

At the pre-trial conference on August 17, 2006, the trial judge told the Pickerills that they could withdraw their rejection to the arbitration award and, if they did so, the court would enter a judgment for the arbitration award amount. The Stemples' attorney objected, arguing the court had no lawful authority permitting the defendants to withdraw their rejection of the arbitration award. Further, he argued that if the court allowed the Pickerills to withdraw their objection, that the Stemples were entitled to reject the arbitration award and seek a jury trial. Nonetheless, the trial court granted the Pickerills' motion and the Stemples appealed.

The Court held that under Supreme Court Rule 93 the trial court lacked authority to permit the Pickerills to withdraw their rejection of the arbitration award. When the Illinois legislature established a court-annexed arbitration program, it provided litigants with the opportunity to reject the arbitration outcome to preserve the right to a jury trial. Although Supreme Court Rule 93 permits a party to reject an arbitration award within 30 days of issuance, there is no provision authorizing a party to "withdraw" its rejection.

Additionally, the Supreme Court Rules regarding court-annexed arbitration allow a party to avoid having to file a rejection to an arbitration award when the adverse party has already done so. If the Court were to permit a unilateral withdrawal of a request for a trial, then it would risk denying the right to reject an arbitration award to a party that relied on his adversary's rejection.