The Appellate Strategist

Insights on appellate issues, trial consultations, and evaluating appeals

Illinois Supreme Court Limits Foreclosure Challenges Once Motion to Confirm Filed

By Kirk Jenkins on Posted in Illinois

This morning, the Illinois Supreme Court filed its opinion in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. McCluskey, holding that once a motion to confirm a judicial sale in a foreclosure action has been filed, the generous grounds set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside a default no longer apply, and the Foreclosure Act governs. Our detailed summary of the facts and lower court opinions in Wells Fargo is here.

Plaintiff initiated foreclosure proceedings pursuant to the Foreclosure Law on defendant’s residential mortgage in 2010. The defendant was served with process, but failed to appear. Three months after the complaint was filed, the circuit court entered the defendant’s default and a judgment of foreclosure. The defendant finally appeared seven months later, on the date set for the judicial sale, moving to stay the sale and vacate the default. The plaintiff agreed to put off the sale for 75 days to give defendant time to try to negotiate a loan modification agreement. When those negotiations were unsuccessful, the judicial sale went forward, with the plaintiff buying the property. Two weeks after that, the defendant moved once again to set aside the default. Defendant’s second motion was made pursuant to Section 2-1301(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and purported to set forth various asserted defenses to foreclosure. The circuit court denied the motion to vacate, holding that the defendant had waived any objections to the default by withdrawing her original motion to vacate in return for a delay in the sale. The court confirmed the sale, and the defendant appealed.  The Appellate Court reversed, holding that a foreclosure defendant could get a foreclosure judgment vacated pursuant to the general provisions of Section 2-1301 merely by showing a compelling excuse for her lack of diligence and some potentially meritorious defense.

In an opinion by Justice Mary Jane Theis, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed. The case turned on the relationship between the general provisions of Section 2-1301, which applied to civil actions in general, and the specific provisions of Section 15-1508(b) of the Foreclosure Law, which provided that a defendant may oppose an order confirming a foreclosure sale only on certain enumerated grounds, including lack of proper notice, unconscionable sale terms and a fraudulently conducted sale.

Once a motion to confirm a judicial sale has been filed, the balance of interests between the parties has shifted, the Court noted. Although Section 15-1508(b) permitted a court to refuse to confirm a sale because “justice was not done,” that power did not extend to protecting a defendant against his or her own negligence in failing to timely appear and defend the suit. Allowing the borrower to unravel everything at the eleventh hour – long after receiving notice and “ample statutory opportunity to respond to the allegations” would be “inconsistent with the need to establish stability” in the process, the Court held. Besides, the Foreclosure Law expressly provided time limitations for the right of redemption and reinstatement – time limitations which would be rendered relatively meaningless if the defendant was allowed to take advantage of Section 2-1301. Therefore, the Court held that until a motion to confirm the sale is filed, a defendant could proceed under Section 2-1301. But once the motion is filed, the more restrictive provisions of Section 15-1508(b) of the Foreclosure Law kick in.

Since the defendant’s Section 2-1301 was filed before the motion to confirm the sale was, the Court held that the defendant could proceed under the looser standard. Nevertheless, the Court held that the defendant’s motion to vacate was properly denied. Defendant was properly served and had notice of the default, judgment of foreclosure and sale. Still, the defendant waited ten months to appear and raise her purported defenses. The defendant’s lack of diligence was not excusable, the Court found, and confirmation of the sale was correctly entered.

Illinois Supreme Court Restricts Appeals of Pollution Control Device Certifications

By Kirk Jenkins on Posted in Illinois

In yet another unanimous decision handed down this morning, the Illinois Supreme Court has streamlined procedures to certify pollution control facilities by barring certain third party appeals. Our detailed summary of the facts and lower court opinion in The Board of Education of Roxana Community School District No. 1 v. The Pollution Control Board is here. Our report on the oral argument is here.

Board of Education arises from twenty-eight separate applications to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to have certain systems, methods, devices and facilities created in conjunction with major renovations to a Madison County oil refinery certified as “pollution control facilities” entitled to special treatment under the Property Tax Code. 35 ILCS 200/11-5, 11-15, 11-20. In August 2011, the  IEPA recommended to the Pollution Control Board that it approve two of the requests, and the Board did so. The plaintiff Board of Educationthen filed petitions to intervene in the two proceedings where applications had been granted. The Pollution Control Board denied intervention. The Board of Education then filed petitions to intervene in the remaining twenty-six cases. The Pollution Control Board refused to reconsider the first two rulings, denied the Board of Education’s petitions to intervene in the remaining cases, and granted the remaining petitions for certification. The Board of Education appealed the Board’s decision directly to the Appellate Court pursuant to Section 41 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act. 415 ILCS 5/41.

The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, holding that appeals from the Pollution Control Board’s decision were governed by Section 11-60 of the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-60), rather than Section 41 of the IEPA. Section 11-60 specifically provides for appeals to the circuit court from decisions relating to pollution control certificates, and restricts standing to appeal to applicants for, or aggrieved holders of, pollution control facility certificates. Section 11-60 governed for two reasons, the Appellate Court found: (1) upholding the Board of Education’s theory would mean that simultaneous appeals could be taken to the Appellate Court and the circuit court by different parties; and (2) the specific trumps the general as a matter of statutory construction.

In an opinion by Justice Lloyd A. Karmeier, the Court affirmed, although for somewhat different reasons than those invoked by the Appellate Court. It was not necessary to resolve a conflict between the IEPA and the Property Tax Code, the Court held; the Board of Education had no standing to appeal even under the IEPA. Section 41 of the IEPA granted standing to appeal to any “party to a Board hearing, any person who filed a complaint on which a hearing was denied, and person who has been denied a variance or permit under [the] Act, any party adversely affected by a final order or determination of the Board, and any person who participated in the public comment process . . .” The Board of Education was “adversely affected” by the orders, but it wasn’t a party, the Court held – its petitions to intervene had all been denied. Nor was it a “person who filed a complaint on which a hearing was denied” – petitions to intervene didn’t amount to “complaints.” The Court also viewed the possibility of simultaneous dual track appeals, by applicants in the circuit court and by objectors in the Appellate Court, as a sufficiently absurd proposition to reject the Board of Education’s interpretation of the IEPA. Besides, the Court pointed out, the Board of Education had no right to intervene to begin with. Certification proceedings involved highly technical determinations, and there was no provision in the statute for anybody other than the entity seeking certification and the state regulators to be involved. The Court conceded that “legitimate concerns” might arise from restricting participation in that fashion, but commented that this was a matter for the General Assembly, not the Court.

Illinois Supreme Court Limits Insurance Guaranty Fund’s Liability in Dram Shop Act Cases

By Kirk Jenkins on Posted in Illinois

This morning, a unanimous Illinois Supreme Court handed the Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund a win, reversing the Appellate Court’s decision in Rogers v. Imeri. Rogers posed the question of how the Fund’s offset for prior settlements is calculated – and therefore, what is the Fund’s maximum possible liability – in a Dramshop Act case. Our detailed summary of the facts and lower court opinions in Rogers is here. Our report on the oral argument is here.

Rogers arises from a drunk driving accident which resulted in the death of the plaintiffs’ 18-year old son. The plaintiffs received settlements totaling a bit over $106,000 from the driver’s insurer, and from their own insurer pursuant to their underinsured driver coverage. They then sued the owner of the bar where the second driver was drinking pursuant to the Dramshop Act.

The Insurance Guaranty Fund is a nonprofit entity created by statute. Its function is to step in whenever an insurer declares bankruptcy and is unable to satisfy its policy obligations, protecting both policy-holders and third party claimants under the policies. Under Section 537.2 of the Insurance Code, the Fund is “obligated to the extent of the covered claims.” Section 546 of the Code provides that the “Fund’s obligation under Section 537.2 shall be reduced by the amount recovered or recoverable, whichever is greater, under such other insurance policy.” Under the Dramshop Act, 235 ILCS 5/6-21, liability is capped at $130,338.51.

Rogers involves reconciling the Insurance Code and the Dramshop Act. Everyone agreed that the Fund was entitled to an offset for the $106,000 in settlements. But was the offset deducted from the jury verdict – likely considerably more than $130,338.51 – with the resulting figure reduced to the cap? If so, the Fund’s liability was likely to be equal to the total liability cap. Or was the offset deducted from the cap initially, meaning that the Fund’s maximum exposure was about $24,000? The Appellate Court had held that the deduction should be taken from the jury verdict.

In an opinion by Justice Mary Jane Theis, the Supreme Court reversed. A “covered claim” for purposes of the Insurance Code was the maximum amount for which the insured could be liable, the Court wrote. Therefore, the Fund’s maximum liability was $130,338.51, the Dramshop Act cap. The clause of the Dramshop Act requiring that the jury determine damages without reference to the cap – the basis for the plaintiffs’ argument that the offset should be deducted from the jury’s verdict – was entirely irrelevant, the Court held. Under the Insurance Code, the Fund’s liability could not be increased by a jury verdict, it could only be decreased by the availability of other insurance. Therefore, the offset should be deducted from the Dramshop Act cap, making the Fund’s maximum liability in the case about $24,000.

Illinois Supreme Court Adopts Totality of Circumstances Test for Sales Tax Situs

By Kirk Jenkins on Posted in Illinois

This morning, the Illinois Supreme Court handed down its highly anticipated decision in Hartney Fuel Oil Co. v. Hamer. Hartney Fuel Oil raises an important question of Illinois business and tax law: how does one determine which local jurisdiction is entitled to collect sales tax on a transaction? Our detailed summary of the facts and lower court decisions is here. Our report on the oral argument is here.

The taxpayer in Hartney Fuel Oil is a retailer of fuel oil. The taxpayer’s home office throughout the relevant years was in Forest View, which is part of Cook County – a high-tax jurisdiction. From the Forest View office, the company set fuel prices, cultivated customer relationships and handled billing and accounting.

But for many years, the taxpayer has maintained a separate location as its sales office. No one at the sales office was directly employed by the company; it contracted with another company to borrow the services of a clerk. The sales office was moved from time to time over the years, ultimately winding up in Mark, Illinois, which is located in comparatively low-tax Putnam County (indeed, both Mark and Putnam County gave the taxpayer a partial rebate of taxes payable on its sales).

Both short-term and long-term contracts were closed by the taxpayer in the Mark office. Daily orders would be directed by telephone to the sales office. Anyone who called Forest View instead would be told to call the Mark office. The clerk in Mark was armed with a list of customers pre-approved for credit purchases, and had the authority to accept (or reject) an order on the spot, binding the taxpayer. Long-term contracts were sent by customers to Mark, and if the president of the company had not yet signed, he would travel to Mark to do so.

The Department of Revenue audited the taxpayer’s sales activities from 2005 through mid-2007, ultimately concluding that sales tax liability had been triggered in Forest View, not Mark. The Department presented the taxpayer with a bill for over $23 million. The taxpayer paid under protest and sued for a refund. Both the circuit court and the Appellate Court sided with the taxpayer, holding that the location where orders were accepted conclusively established the situs of sales tax liability.

The Court began by addressing the three statutes at issue: the Home Rule County Retailers’ Occupation Tax Law, the Home Rule Municipal Retailers’ Occupation Tax Act, and the Regional Transportation Authority Act. All three statutes authorized a tax “upon all persons engaged in the business of selling tangible personal property” at retail within the jurisdiction. The Court pointed out that it had long ago defined the Retailers’ Occupation Tax act as a tax on the occupation of retail selling, not one on the sale itself. Where the occupation – as opposed to the sale – took place depended on “the composite of many activities extending from the preparation for, and the obtaining of, orders for goods to the final consummation of the sale by the passing of title and payment of the purchase price.” Therefore, simply placing a clerk in a low-tax jurisdiction to accept orders, while keeping the remainder of one’s business pursuits in another county, was not sufficient to transfer tax liability under the statute, which depended on a fact-intensive, totality of the circumstances test. This made sense, the Court pointed out, since the purpose of local sales taxes is to reduce at least somewhat the tax burden on real property by transferring part of that burden to retail businesses in proportion to their use of local governmental services.

But that wasn’t the end of the inquiry, the Court found. Next, it turned to the Department’s regulation implementing the sales tax statutes – 86 Illinois Administrative Code 220.115.

The Department pointed to Section 220.115(b) of the regulation, arguing that by providing that “enough of the selling activity must occur within the home rule county to justify concluding that the seller is engaged in business” within that county, the regulation had adopted the totality-of-the-circumstances test imposed by the statute. The taxpayer, on the other hand, pointed to subsection (c) of the statute: “the seller’s acceptance of the purchase order . . . is the most important single factor in the occupation of selling. If the purchaser order is accepted at the seller’s place of business within the county or by someone who is working out of the place of business . . . or if a purchase order that is an acceptance of the seller’s complete and unconditional offer to sell is received by the seller’s place of business within the home rule county or by someone working out of that place of business, the seller incurs Home Rule County Retailers’ Occupation Tax liability in that home rule county.” The Department responded that construing subsection (c) as conclusively setting the sales tax situs as the place of acceptance rendered subsection (b) meaningless.

The Court concluded that neither side was entirely right. Instead, the Court concluded that subsection (b) described a threshold inquiry: was enough going on in a particular jurisdiction to qualify as the business of selling for purposes of the sales tax? Subsection (c) dealt with a slightly different question: when multiple jurisdictions met the threshold test, which jurisdiction prevails? So applying that construction to the facts at hand, the regulations seemed to fix sales tax liability in Mark. But since a regulation can’t narrow or broaden the scope of taxation under a statute approved by the legislature, the Court struck down the regulation.

But that didn’t mean that the taxpayer owed the tax bill. According to the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights Act, the Department must return to the taxpayer taxes and penalties assessed on the basis of erroneous written information or advance the taxpayer receives from the Department. 20 ILCS 2520/4(c).  Although moving the sales office to Mark wasn’t good enough to change the tax situs strictly as a matter of the statutes, the taxpayer had acted in accordance with the Department’s erroneous regulations. So the taxpayer was entitled to a refund of the taxes and penalties.

So where does all this leave us? First and foremost, the Department of Revenue now faces the complex job of rewriting the sales tax regulations. Since the statutes have been definitively interpreted to tax the occupation of selling, not a particular sale – a question decided by the totality of the circumstances – avoiding a high-tax jurisdiction is likely to require far more extensive changes than simply opening a rental office with a telephone. So although the taxpayer ultimately won the refund in Hartney Fuel Oil, the decision qualifies as a win for Cook County. 

Illinois Supreme Court to Hand Down Decisions in Six Civil Cases Tomorrow Morning

By Kirk Jenkins on Posted in Illinois

The Illinois Supreme Court has announced that it will hand down decisions tomorrow morning in six civil cases argued during the September term of the Court (exactly half the docket from that term). The cases are:

  • People ex rel. The Department of Labor v. E.R.H. Enterprises, No. 115106 – How is a “public utility” defined for purposes of the exception to the Prevailing Wage Act set forth in 820 ILCS 130/2? Our detailed summary of the facts and lower court rulings in E.R.H. Enterprises is here. Our report on the oral argument is here.
  • Hartney Fuel Oil Company v. Board of Trustees of the Village of Forest View, Nos. 115130 et al. – When a business’ operations span multiple counties, where does a retail sale tax place for purposes of the local portion of the state sales tax? Our detailed summary of the facts and lower court rulings in Hartney Fuel Oil is here. Our report on the oral argument is here.
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. McCluskey, No. 115469 – (1) May a motion pursuant to Section 2-1301(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure to vacate a default in a foreclosure suit be made after the sheriff’s sale has already occurred? (2) Did defendant waive her right to make a renewed motion to set aside the default by withdrawing her first motion in return for agreement to temporarily postpone the sale? Our detailed summary of the facts and lower court rulings in Wells Fargo is here.
  • The Board of Education of Roxana Community Unit School District No. 1 v. The Pollution Control Board, No. 115473 – May a party challenging the certification of a system as a pollution control facility appeal directly to the Appellate Court pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS 5/41(a), after its challenge is rejected by the Illinois Pollution Control Board? Our detailed summary of the facts and lower court rulings in Board of Education is here. Our report on the oral argument is here.
  • Schultz v. Performance Lighting, Inc., No. 115738 – Must a withholding notice under the Illinois Income Withholding for Support Act strictly comply with the statutory requirements in order to be effective, or is substantial compliance sufficient? Our detailed summary of the facts and lower court rulings in Schultz is here. Our report on the oral argument is here.
  • Rogers v. Imeri, No. 115860 – How is the maximum possible liability exposure of the Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund calculated in a tort case where the recovery cap under the Dramshop Act applies and other defendants have settled? Our detailed summary of the facts and lower court rulings in Rogers is here. Our report on the oral argument is here.

So far this year, the median time elapsed between oral argument and decision for the Court’s unanimous civil decisions has been 94 days. For non-unanimous decisions, the median time is 149 days. Tomorrow will mark 71 (E.R.H. Enterprises and Hartney Fuel Oil), 65 (Wells Fargo and Board of Education) and 64 (Schultz and Rogers) days since the oral arguments in the six cases above.

Illinois Supreme Court to Decide Whether Interest and Fees are Available on Legal Malpractice Claim

By Kirk Jenkins on Posted in Illinois

Our previews of the latest additions to the Illinois Supreme Court’s civil docket continue with Goldfine v. Barack, Ferrazzano, Kirschbaum and Perlman, a case from the First District Appellate Court. Goldfine poses a number of questions about malpractice actions arising from lawsuits under the Illinois Securities Law, most prominently: are interest and attorneys’ fees available as damages?

The plaintiffs made twelve separate purchases between 1987 and 1990 of a certain company’s stock from a broker who was also a close personal friend. In the spring of 1991, the company filed for bankruptcy and the stock became worthless. The plaintiff retained the defendant law firm to identify possible claims, negotiate a settlement and – if no settlement was possible – preserve the claims until plaintiffs could find a contingency-fee lawyer to bring the suit.

Plaintiffs’ theory was that at the time they retained the defendant firm, they had a viable claim against the defendants for rescission under the Illinois Securities Law. The problem was, to bring such a claim, the purchaser has to serve a notice of rescission within six months of learning of his or her right to the remedy. The defendants did not do so. Thus, when plaintiffs hired new counsel in 1992 who filed the Securities Law claim, it was dismissed as time-barred. The plaintiffs filed their malpractice claims two years later. The plaintiffs’ merits claim arising from the stock purchases themselves was settled in 2007 for $3.2 million.

The malpractice claim proceeded to a bench trial. Ultimately, the court held that the final eleven stock purchases had violated the Illinois Securities Law. The trial court awarded damages based on the following formula – total price paid, minus the $3.2 million settlement, plus 10% interest, beginning on each stock purchase on the day it was made. After further arguments and motion practice, the court awarded attorneys’ fees and costs, calculating the fee at 40% of the award. Plaintiffs appealed, challenging both the calculation of damages and the attorneys’ fees award; defendants cross-appealed, contending that the fee-shifting and interest awards were punitive and therefore impermissible in a legal malpractice action, and that the plaintiffs had failed to prove they would have prevailed on their securities claim.

The Appellate Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The damages issues turn on the interpretation of section 13(A) of the Securities Law, 815 ILCS 5/13(A). The majority chose to follow the decision in Kugler v. Southmark Realty Partners III, which held that interest should be calculated on the full amount paid for the stock, rather than offsetting the payment with any settlements first. The Court held that there was no basis in the statute for the trial court’s decision to reduce the value of each stock purchase by a proportionate share of the ultimate settlement before calculating interest. Therefore, the judgment was reversed with respect to this element of compensatory damages.

The Court then turned to the issue of punitive damages. According to Section 2-1115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 735 ILCS 5/2-1115, punitive damages are not available in an action for medical or legal malpractice. According to the majority, the statutory interest, fees and costs award did not amount to punitive damages. There was no provision in the Securities Law for a punitive damages award, the Court pointed out; interest, fees and costs were all elements intended to fully compensate the plaintiffs. Nevertheless, the Court declined to assume that the trial court would have found a 40% contingent fee to be reasonable with respect to the recalculated – and much larger – damages award, so the Court remanded the attorneys’ fees award for reconsideration.

Finally, the Appellate Court addressed defendants’ cross-appeal. The majority held that the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff had reasonably relied on the securities representative’s representations was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court also rejected defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs had merely sought the reduced settlement value of their claim as damages, rather than the full value of the claim.

Justice Robert E. Gordon dissented in part, arguing that the Securities Law does not allow interest to be charged against the portion of the securities purchase price which the plaintiffs had already recovered.

We expect Goldfine to be decided in six to eight months.

Illinois Supreme Court to Decide Whether Waiver of Personal Jurisdiction Operates Retroactively

By Kirk Jenkins on Posted in Illinois

Our previews of the latest additions to the Illinois Supreme Court’s civil docket continue with BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Mitchell. BAC Home Loans presents the following question: does waiver of a personal jurisdiction objection operate retroactively, validating everything which has already happened in the proceeding, or only prospectively?

The plaintiff in BAC filed a complaint of foreclosure in late 2009. In April 2010, the defendant having neither answered the complaint nor moved for relief, the plaintiff filed a motion for an order of default. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a second motion for order of default, as well as a motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale and for the appointment of a selling officer. A few days after that, all the plaintiffs’ pending motions were granted. A judicial sale was held in September 2010. The plaintiff moved for an order approving the sale in August 2011. The motion was granted a month later.

On October 23, 2011, counsel for defendant entered an appearance and filed a motion to vacate approval of the sale, stating that "[t]o the best of her knowledge," defendant had never been served, had never received notice of the motion for default, had been told by plaintiff that her loan modification had been completed and approved, and had never received notice of the approval order. That motion was withdrawn a few weeks later. Next, the defendant filed a "motion to quash" the approval order, or in the alternative, for relief under 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 and 735 ILCS 5/15-1508. That motion was "stricken without prejudice" in early December 2011, but was re-filed the next day.

In April 2012, the plaintiff responded to the motion to quash, attaching an affidavit of service claiming that the defendant had been served by substitute service on her daughter, whom the affidavit named. The defendant responded to plaintiff’s opposition with an affidavit of her own, stating that she had no daughter and knew no one by the name stated in the affidavit of service. The Circuit Court entered an order denying the plaintiff’s motion to quash on the grounds that she had voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction by filing her initial motion to vacate in October 2011.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Defendant had filed her initial motion to vacate within thirty days of the judgment of foreclosure and sale, but she then withdrew the motion. Each of defendant’s motions that followed were filed more than thirty days after the entry of the final and appealable judgment, so none had extended the window to appeal from the judgment, according to defendant. The Appellate Court disagreed, noting that the defendant’s third post-judgment motion had sought alternative relief under Section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure, thus triggering appellate jurisdiction under Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(3). The 2-1401 motion was not untimely because it challenged the underlying order as void, meaning that no time limit applied. Therefore, the Appellate Court proceeded to the merits.

On appeal, plaintiff did not contest that service on the defendant’s "daughter" was improper. Nevertheless, plaintiff insisted that by failing to challenge personal jurisdiction with her first post-judgment motion, defendant had waived any challenge to the court’s jurisdiction (the defendant’ s first motion had denied service, but merely asked that the order approving the sale be vacated, rather than that the entire proceeding be dismissed or service of process quashed). Thus, the defendant failed to comply with the requirements of Section 2-301(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 15-1505.6 of the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law for challenging personal jurisdiction, waiving her challenge.

Defendant responded that even if her first post-judgment motion waived the question of jurisdiction, it did so only prospectively, validating only steps the court might take after the defendant’s appearance; it could not retroactively validate earlier orders and judgments. The defendant cited C.T.A.S.S.&U. Federal Credit Union v. Johnson, which held that a waiver of jurisdiction operates only prospectively. The Appellate Court disagreed, holding that certain amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure enacted in 2000 had provided that "all objections to the court’s jurisdiction over the party’s person" were waived by an appearance. The Court followed Eastern Savings Bank, FSB v. Flores, holding that plaintiff’s waiver operated both prospectively and retroactively, thus validating the court’s orders and judgment.

We expect BAC to be decided within six to eight months.

Illinois Supreme Court to Decide Whether Child Psychologist’s Fees Taxable as Costs in Custody Battle

By Kirk Jenkins on Posted in Illinois

Our previews of the latest additions to the Illinois Supreme Court’s civil docket continue with In re Marriage of Tiballi. Tiballi poses the following issue: when a parent voluntarily dismisses a petition to change custody, can he or she be hit with the fees of a court-appointed child psychologist as costs?

The parties in Tiballi divorced in 2005. Five years later, the father petitioned for a change in their child’s residential custodian. The court appointed a psychologist to speak to the parents and the child, as authorized by the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act; the psychologist ultimately submitted a report recommending that the child stay with its mother. Not long after, the mother filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the father had decided not to proceed with his petition. The court’s order originally said nothing about costs, but later, the wife successfully moved to amend the order to permit her to seek an award of costs. She then filed a petition for an award of slightly less than $5,000, representing her share of the psychologist’s costs. The trial court granted the petition.

The Second District affirmed. The case turned on the interpretation of Section 2-1009(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action "upon payment of costs." (735 ILCS 5/2-1009). The court distinguished "costs" from "litigation expenses" — the difference being that court costs are mandatory and nonnegotiable, the price of having your case heard. The fees of a psychologist in a custody proceeding were not within the control of the parties, the court found; whether or not to retain him or her was up to the court, and the parties had no say in negotiating the psychologist’s fees. Thus, the court found that the psychologist’s fees were analogous to court costs. The court distinguished an earlier Supreme Court case, Galowich v. Beech Aircraft Corp., which permitted the recovery of only a limited share of expenses for depositions necessarily used at trial, distinguishing deposition expenses, a tool for trial preparation, from the trial court’s decision as to whether or not to retain a psychologist to advise it.

Justice Kathryn E. Zenoff dissented. The majority had erred at the outset, Justice Zenoff argued — the wife had moved to have the custody challenge dismissed, and how could a litigation opponent "voluntarily dismiss" her adversary’s proceeding? So Section 2-1009(a) had nothing to do with the issue. But even if it were a voluntary dismissal, Justice Zenoff rejected equating the psychologist’s fees with costs for a long list of reasons: (1) court costs are paid directly to the clerk of the court; (2) no judgment or court order is required to incur liability for court costs; (3) court costs are fixed and — unlike the psychologist’s fees – not subject to review for reasonableness; (4) court costs are not subject to allocation between parties based on ability to pay; (5) court costs are incurred regardless of the type of litigation involved; and (6) court costs have nothing to do with specific merits-based or policy-based issues. Since, in Justice Zenoff’s view, the psychologist’s fees were not "costs," the judgment should have been reversed.

We expect Tiballi to be decided within six to eight months.

Illinois Supreme Court to Hear Due Process Challenge to Liquor License Revocation

By Kirk Jenkins on Posted in Illinois

Our previews of the latest additions to the Illinois Supreme Court’s civil docket continue with WISAM 1, d/b/a Sheridan Liquors v. Illinois Liquor Control Commission, an unpublished decision from the Third District Appellate Court. WISAM involves a due process challenge to the revocation of the plaintiff’s liquor license.

First, a bit of background. Federal law requires that any time a financial institution is involved in any way in a deposit, withdrawal, exchange of currency or other payment or transfer involving more than $10,000, a "currency transaction report" must be filed. Deliberately arranging your transactions to keep under the $10,000 limit — a process called "structuring" or "smurfing" — is a serious criminal offense.

Section 3-28 of the ordinances of the city of Peoria provides that no "officer, associate, member, representative, agent or employee" of a liquor licensee shall violate any ordinance of the city or law of the state or of the United States "in or about the licensed premises."

The plaintiff in WISAM received a notice of hearing re revocation of its liquor license, alleging that the plaintiff had violated Section 3-28. At the hearing, the City’s attorney introduced a copy of a federal indictment of one of the plaintiff’s managers, along with copies of the transcripts from his federal criminal trial. According to the indictment, the manager had engaged in structuring, making significant withdrawals below $10,000 in connection with the plaintiff’s check-cashing business. The plaintiff objected to admission of the transcripts on hearsay grounds, but not to the stipulation or indictment.

After opening statements (and before the plaintiff had introduced any evidence), the city’s attorney moved for a directed finding, which was granted on the grounds that the manager’s activities amounted to a violation of Section 3-28. The plaintiff was allowed to make an offer of proof to make a record for appeal, and showed that the money had been handled as it was because the plaintiff’s insurance coverage was limited to $10,000 cash on hand. During the penalty phase, the plaintiff’s president reaffirmed this point, testifying that the cash transactions were handled as they were for insurance reasons and safety. The Local Liquor Control Commission revoked the plaintiff’s license. The Illinois Liquor Control Commission affirmed, holding that the finding of a violation of Section 3-28 was supported by substantial evidence, and the plaintiff was not denied due process. The plaintiff then appealed to the Third District.

On appeal, the plaintiff raised two arguments: (1) the plaintiff was denied due process when the liquor control commissioner admitted the transcripts into evidence and immediately granted the City’s motion for a directed finding; and (2) the transcripts were hearsay, and absent the transcripts there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of a violation of Section 3-28.

Although the Appellate Court took a dim view of the procedure below — cutting off any defense at all by the plaintiff to immediately enter a directed finding — the Court found no prejudice arising from the due process violation. The court pointed to the testimony of plaintiff’s president, who conceded that the plaintiff deliberately kept its withdrawals below $10,000 because of its insurance limits. The court concluded that the Commission had permissibly concluded that the true purpose behind the pattern of the plaintiff’s transactions was as set forth in the indictment and stipulation. Concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of a violation of Section 3-28, the Court affirmed.

Justice Mary McDade dissented, pointing out that nothing in the indictment alleged that the manager had carried out the charged transactions "in or about the licensed premises," as required to find a violation of Section 3-28. Therefore, the indictment had no probative value. Nor was the testimony of the plaintiff’s president sufficient to support the revocation; his testimony that the transactions were kept below $10,000 for insurance reasons was corroborated by insurance documents. Therefore, Justice McDade argued, it was necessary to determine whether the transcripts were inadmissible hearsay. Given that there was no showing that the convicted manager was unavailable at the time of the hearing, Justice McDade concluded that the transcripts were indeed hearsay, and the Commission’s finding should therefore have been reversed.

We expect WISAM to be decided within six to eight months.

Florida High Court Reinstates $1.2 million Judgment Against Law Firm of Prospective Client

By on Posted in Florida

 

             On October 24, 2013, the Florida Supreme Court reinstated a $1.2 million final judgment awarded to a prospective client of a personal injury law firm who sat in a chair that collapsed during a consultation at the firm.  See Friedrich v. Fetterman & Assocs., P.A., No. SC11-2188, 2013 WL 5745617 (Fla. Oct. 24, 2013) (to read the slip opinion, click here).  The issue in the case centered around whether plaintiff’s expert’s testimony was legally sufficient to establish causation.  In finding that it was legally sufficient, the supreme court quashed the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision vacating the judgment.

            The facts are straightforward.  Following a car accident, Robert Friedrich met with an attorney at the personal injury firm of Fetterman & Associates, P.A. regarding possible legal representation.  The conference room chair Friedrich was sitting on collapsed, causing Friedrich injuries.  Friedrich in turn sued Fetterman for negligently failing to warn him of the chair’s dangerous condition. 

            At trial, it was undisputed that the chair had a defect that was not visible to the naked eye and that none of the chairs in the conference room had any prior problems.  Plaintiff’s expert testified that he inspects his own chairs every six months by performing a “flex test.”  He also testified that it was possible to inspect a chair today, find no problem, and have it fail tomorrow.  As for the chair in question, he testified that a hands-on inspection of it before the accident would have found the defect.  Fetterman’s expert, on the other hand, testified that the best test for a chair is to sit on it and that a reasonable inspection, including a flex test, would not have revealed the defect in the subject chair.

            The trial court denied Fetterman’s multiple motions for a directed verdict and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Friedrich.  On appeal, the Fourth District reversed the trial court and ordered that a directed verdict be entered in favor of Fetterman.  The supreme court quashed the Fourth District’s decision, concluding that it “impermissibly reweighed the evidence and substituted its own evaluation of the evidence in place of that of the jury.”  The Court concluded that there was sufficient proof to support the jury’s finding that the defendant’s negligence “probably caused” the plaintiff’s injury.

            Chief Justice Polston dissented with an opinion and Justice Canady concurred in the dissent.  As a threshold issue, Justice Polston believed that there was no basis for the Court to exercise conflict jurisdiction over the case.  He next stated that the majority failed to mention two critical aspects of the testimony of plaintiff’s expert that he believed supported the directed verdict:  (1) he testified that he had no opinion as to how quickly the failure in the chair occurred and that the weakened condition could have manifested in seconds, minutes, hours, days, or weeks before the accident; and (2) he conceded that the defect may not have been detectable by an inspection until just before the collapse and offered “no time frame concerning how long before the accident such testing would have been effective.”

            The Court’s decision will not be final until the time to file a motion for rehearing expires or until the Court decides any filed motions for hearing.  To check on the current status of this case, please click here. 

LexBlog