Lost My Case Against The Neighbor Who Killed My Trees Because My Backyard Isn't A Nature Preserve. The Statute Section That Actually Applies Has No Such Requirement. Motion To Vacate Filed — What Am I Missing?

Location: Illinois, self-represented. I sued a neighbor in small claims after he repeatedly applied herbicide to two trees standing on our shared boundary line (a licensed survey puts the line through the trunks) and killed them. At the bench trial my documentary evidence (the survey, an arborist's appraisal, and a contractor's removal estimate) was excluded as hearsay on the defendant's objection. I asked for a continuance to bring the authors in to testify. It was denied, and judgment was entered the same day. The written order says I "did not satisfy the element that [my] trees were on protected land as defined by the act."

My issue: "protected land" only appears in §2.5 of the Act (740 ILCS 185), which is the enhanced-damages provision for conservation land. Section 1's definition even says protected land is "not inclusive of residential, commercial, or other areas that are not subject to the aforementioned protections." §2, the general provision, has no protected-land element at all. It covers any party who "intentionally cut or knowingly caused to be cut any timber or tree... which he or she did not have the legal right to cut or cause to be cut." Both properties are residential, so as far as I can tell no residential case could ever satisfy the element the judgment required.

In fairness, I think I know how the confusion happened. My self-drafted complaint cited the Act generally ("740 ILCS 185/") without naming a section, but when I quoted the damages language I copied a sentence associated with §2.5 ("3 times stumpage value plus remediation costs"). The remediation-costs phrase belongs to the protected-land provision, not §2. Honest mistake, I'm not a lawyer. My motion owns the misquote and argues that in small claims the pleaded facts control over a quoted snippet (Rule 282(a) requires only a short and simple statement of the claim, and pro se pleadings are construed liberally). It also argues §2.5 couldn't apply on its face anyway, since it's limited to conservation-type land and both properties are residential.

I filed a timely motion under 735 ILCS 5/2-1203 (with a request for leave under Supreme Court Rule 287(b), since this is small claims) to vacate and set a rehearing, arguing: (1) the judgment applied §2.5's element to a §2 claim; (2) my complaint's facts, including an express quote of the common-law boundary-tree rule (tenants in common), also state common-law claims (trespass, private nuisance, property damage, restoration-cost measure) that were never adjudicated; and (3) a rehearing with subpoenaed witnesses cures the hearsay problem, which is the same fix I asked for during the trial. Backstop: a protective notice of appeal goes in before the 30-day deadline if the motion isn't ruled on in time.

For anyone who practices in Illinois:

1. Am I reading §2 vs. §2.5 correctly? And does my complaint's misquoted §2.5 damages sentence lock me into §2.5, or do the pleaded facts control?
2. Any authority on whether killing a tree with herbicide satisfies "cut or knowingly caused to be cut"? (The common-law counts are my primary theory either way.)
3. Is there anything you'd raise at the motion hearing beyond the statutory text?

Not looking for sympathy, just trying to figure out what I'm missing. Thanks.