Justia Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2008 the Seymours filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. In 2010 the Seymours filed a personal injury action, based on a 2010 automobile accident that occurred while Seymour was being transported in an ambulance. A 2010 plan modification entailed a reduction in the Seymours’s monthly payment amount based on an allegation that Seymour was unable to work and was only receiving workers’ compensation payments. The Seymours never apprised the bankruptcy court that their circumstances had changed after the 2010 modification. Defendants in the injury action successfully obtained summary judgment, based on estoppel because the Seymours failed to disclose their personal injury action in the bankruptcy proceeding. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed,The fact that the Seymours had a legal duty to disclose this suit and failed to do so does not establish intent to deceive or manipulate the bankruptcy court. The 2010 motion to modify the bankruptcy plan did not evince their awareness of the need to disclose the personal injury cause of action. View "Seymour v. Collins" on Justia Law

In 2008 the Illinois Department of Public Health issued a stop-work order issued to Lake Environmental during an asbestos cleanup at Scott Air Force Base.. The Department lifted the stop-work order after several months, but in 2010 removed Lake from the list of state-approved asbestos abatement contractors based on the violations at Scott, which had been remedied. Lake sought judicial review. The trial court held that the Department was barred by res judicata from revoking Lake’s license. Lake then sought sanctions against under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 for bad faith.The trial court denied the motion without explanation. The appellate court concluded that the circuit court erred by failing to provide an explanation and remanded. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. The plain language of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 imposes no requirement on a circuit court to explain its reasons for denying a motion for sanctions. A record is not inherently insufficient when the circuit court does not provide its reasons for denying the motion. View "Lake Envtl., Inc. v. Arnold" on Justia Law

On October 14, 2010, OneWest Bank sued Standard, as trustee, and unknown trust beneficiaries, to foreclose a “reverse equity” adjustable-rate mortgage on property held by the trust and executed in 2009. Standard filed an answer and counterclaim on July 19, 2011, seeking to rescind the mortgage, alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). 15 U.S.C. 1601. The circuit court dismissed. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that Standard was not an “obligor” under TILA and was not entitled to rescind the transaction. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. The trustee has legal and equitable title to the property and is the only party with an ownership interest in the property since the beneficiary’s interest is in the trust itself and is considered personal property. Standard, was entitled to receive TILA disclosures, including notice of the right to rescind after it entered into the consumer credit transaction. Because TILA disclosures were not provided to Standard, the three-day right to rescind period was extended to three years. Standard timely exercised its right to rescind when it gave notice on June 2, 2011. View "Fin. Freedom Acquisition, LLC v. Standard Bank & Trust Co." on Justia Law

Section 15-1504.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure imposes a $50 filing fee in residential mortgage foreclosure cases, two percent of which is retained by the clerk of the court in which the foreclosure complaint is filed,735 ILCS 5/15-1504.1 . The circuit court of Will County found section 15-1504.1 violated the judicial fee officer prohibition in article VI, section 14, of the Illinois Constitution. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, concluding that fee officer prohibition, were aimed at officers who had a direct role in the adjudicative process of the court system, and were compensated for their services through the payment of fees taxed to the litigants. Although clerks of the circuit courts are officers of the judicial branch of government, they are nonjudicial officers. View "Walker v. McGuire" on Justia Law

The Freeport Journal published an online article concerning Hadley’s decision to again seek election to the Stephenson County Board. Online readers could post comments after completing a basic registration. “Fuboy” posted: “Hadley is a Sandusky waiting to be exposed. Check out the view he has [an elementary school] from his front door” and “Anybody know the tale of Hadley’s suicide attempt? ….” Hadley filed a defamation lawsuit against the Journal and its parent company. The company provided Hadley the IP address acquired from Fuboy’s internet service provider, Comcast. The federal court dismissed the suit against as barred by federal statute. Hadley returned to state court with a defamation action against Subscriber Doe a/k/a “Fuboy” and issued a subpoena to Comcast. The circuit court directed Comcast to comply and to notify the subscriber. An attorney moved to quash. The court stated that the better procedure to discover Fuboy’s identity would be Illinois Supreme Court Rule 224, under which Hadley would have the burden of setting forth allegations that would be sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss under Code of Civil Procedure 2-615, even if such a motion was not filed. The court allowed Hadley to add a count, directed at Comcast, seeking relief under Rule 224. The court concluded that count I could withstand a motion to dismiss, so Hadley was entitled to Rule 224 relief. The court found that the comment imputed the commission of a crime to Hadley; was not capable of innocent construction; and could not be considered an opinion. The court directed Comcast to provide identification. The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. Hadley’s complaint states facts to establish a defamation cause of action sufficient to withstand a section 2-615 motion, so the court properly concluded that necessity was established under Rule 224. View "Hadley v. Subscriber Doe" on Justia Law

McVey sued for injuries she sustained after a waitress dropped a tray on her foot. Memorial Hospital of Carbondale treated her. McVey settled the lawsuit for $7,500, then filed a petition to adjudicate liens. The hospital’s lien was $2,891.64. In addition to attorney fees, McVey allegedly incurred litigation costs of $846.66 in securing the settlement. The trial court entered an order recognizing that under the Health Care Services Lien Act (Act) (770 ILCS 23/10), no individual licensed category of health care professional or health care providers may receive more than one-third of the award or settlement, so that the hospital could recover no more than $2,500. The court acknowledged precedent holding, that in order to ensure that a plaintiff receives 30% of the judgment, the computation of the amount available to health care providers should not begin until costs associated with bringing the case and securing payment have been deducted, but refused to deduct attorney fees and costs before calculating the amount available to the hospital. The appellate court reversed and remanded. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, holding that hospitals are not required to contribute to the costs of litigation. View "McVey v. M.L.K. Enters., LLC" on Justia Law

Walters, an Illinois timber buyer, executed a 2005 contract with Biederbeck to log trees from her Warren County property for $16,000. Biederbeck was a resident of the State of Washington. O’Dell, an Iowa resident, hauled the trees to a sawmill. After the harvest, the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District asserted that it owned the property and filed suit, alleging violation of the Wrongful Tree Cutting Act, trespass, conversion, and negligence. Biederbeck denied knowledge of whether she was paid for trees that were improperly harvested. Walters and O’Dell did not file answers. Following a default judgment, the trial court denied a petition under 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 to vacate. The defendants alleged, among other things, that they had been engaged in good faith settlement negotiations and that their attorney had experienced a death in the family. Despite expressing that equity favored vacating the judgment, the court believed it was constrained by 2007 Illinois Supreme Court precedent to eliminate equitable considerations in the proceedings. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed and remanded, stating that when a 2-1401 petition presents a fact-dependent challenge to a final judgment or order, other standards govern the proceeding. The petition must set forth specific factual allegations supporting: the existence of a meritorious defense; due diligence in presenting this defense; and due diligence in filing the section 2-1401 petition. The court may also consider equitable considerations to relax the applicable due diligence standards under appropriate limited circumstances. View "Warren Cnty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. Walters" on Justia Law

Zakarzecka worked as a home healthcare provider for Meuse, an elderly blind man. He required Zakarzecka to wear special shoes inside the house and to change into street shoes when answering the door or going outside. When Zakarzecka heard a deliveryman on May 10, she hurriedly attempted to change her shoes at the top of the stairwell. She fell down the stairs, breaking both wrists and suffering partial loss of the use of both hands. She sought compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/1). Because Meuse lacked workers’ compensation insurance, Zakarzecka named the custodian of the Injured Workers’ Benefit Fund, the Illinois State Treasurer. An arbitrator awarded temporary total disability benefits and compensation for the permanent and partial loss of her hands to Zakarzecka, against the Fund. The Commission affirmed. As custodian , the Treasurer sought judicial review. The circuit court confirmed the ruling. The appellate court initially reversed. On rehearing, Zakarzecka argued, for the first time, that judicial review was barred because the Treasurer had not filed an appeal bond, a statutory prerequisite for invoking the circuit court’s jurisdiction, 820 ILCS 305/19(f)(2). Agreeing that a bond was required, the appellate court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. View "Ill. State Treasurer v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n" on Justia Law

Leetaru, a graduate student at and former employee of the University of Illinois, sought to enjoin the University from taking further action in an investigation of him, as a student, regarding allegations that he violated the University’s “Policy and Procedures on Academic Integrity in Research and Publication.” Leetaru alleged that the defendants failed to comply with the University’s rules and regulations governing student discipline and that their actions exceeded their lawful authority, were arbitrary, resulted in a gross injustice, and deprived him of due process. The circuit court dismissed, finding that exclusive jurisdiction lay in the Court of Claims. The appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, citing the right to seek injunctive relief in circuit court to prevent unauthorized or unconstitutional conduct by the state, its agencies, boards, departments, commissions and agents, or to compel their compliance with legal or constitutional requirements, which includes actions to require compliance with administrative rules and regulations. Leetaru’s claims may proceed in circuit court without offending principles of sovereign immunity. Leetaru does not question the right of defendants to investigate research misconduct, but only claims that in investigating misconduct, defendants are obligated to adhere to policies and procedures promulgated by the University and that they have failed to do so. View "Leetaru v. Bd of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill." on Justia Law

One Hope contracts with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services to provide services with the objective of keeping troubled families together. Seven-month-old Marshana died while her family participated in One Hope’s program. The Cook County public guardian, as administrator of Marshana’s estate, filed a wrongful death case to recover damages against One Hope and Marshana’s mother,alleging that One Hope failed to protect Marshana from abuse or neglect and should not have allowed Marshana to be returned to her mother because of her unfavorable history and failure to complete parenting classes. Attorneys for the Public Guardian deposed the executive director of One Hope, who revealed the existence of a “Priority Review” report regarding Marshana’s case. The priority review process considers whether One Hope’s services were professionally sound, identifies “gaps in service delivery” and evaluates “whether certain outcomes have been successful or unsuccessful.” The Public Guardian moved to compel production of the report. One Hope argued that the report was protected from disclosure by the self-critical analysis privilege. The circuit court determined that the privilege did not apply. The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. Relevant legislative acts and omissions evince a public policy determination by the General Assembly that the type of information sought in discovery here is not subject to a “self-critical analysis privilege.” View "Harris v. One Hope United, Inc." on Justia Law