Justia Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. (Burke Engineering) filed a complaint to foreclose on a mechanics lien on property owned by Carol and Glen Harkins. Heritage Bank of Central Illinois had a mortgage interest in the property. The circuit court invalidated the lien on grounds that the requirements for a mechanics lien set forth in section 1 of the Mechanics Lien Act were not met. Specifically, the court found that the services provided by Burke Engineering did not constitute an improvement to the property and that the provision of services was not induced or encouraged by the property owner. The appellate court affirmed. Burke Engineering argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the circuit court erred in granting Heritage Bank’s motion for summary judgment. After review, the Supreme Court reversed. Because Burke Engineering’s services were done for the purpose of improving the property, the services were lienable. However, it was unclear whether Carol Schenck, owner of the property at the time the contract for services was entered into, knowingly permitted Harkins to enter into contracts regarding the property. Because the resolution of this issue involved unanswered material questions of fact, Heritage Bank was not entitled to summary judgment. View "Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd v. Heritage Bank of Central Illinois" on Justia Law

In 2000, plaintiffs filed a class action, Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. including various claims of fraud and deception by the tobacco company in its use of the terms “lights” and “lowered tar and nicotine” in marketing cigarettes. In 2005 the Illinois Supreme Court concluded that the claims were barred by FTC regulations relating to the terms. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. In 2008, plaintiffs sought relief from judgment under 735 ILCS 5/2-1401, arguing that subsequent actions by the FTC constituted new evidence warranting vacatur.. The circuit court denied the petition on the merits; the appellate court reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court vacated both decisions. Section 2-1401 does not authorize the circuit court to vacate the judgment of a reviewing court. A litigant seeking to vacate the judgment of a reviewing court after the rehearing period has expired and the mandate has issued, must move to recall the mandate in the reviewing court which rendered the contested judgment. The court expressed no opinion on the merits of such a motion, should one be filed. View "Price v. Philip Morris, Inc." on Justia Law

From 1966-1970, Folta was a shipping clerk and product tester for Ferro Engineering and was exposed to products containing asbestos. In 2011, Folta was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a disease associated with asbestos exposure. He sued Ferro, alleging negligence. Ferro moved to dismiss under ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9), arguing that the claimswere barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/5(a)) and the Workers’ Occupational Diseases Act (820 ILCS 310/5(a)). Ferro maintained that his action fell outside the exclusive remedy provisions because his claims were not “compensable” under the statutes: the symptoms did not manifest until more than 40 years after his last exposure to asbestos, and any potential asbestos-related compensation claim was barred under the 25-year limitation provision. The circuit court dismissed, holding that the action was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions. The appellate court reversed, reasoning that the term “compensability” must relate to the “ability to recover under the Act.” The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the dismissal, noting that the acts do not prevent an employee from seeking a remedy against other third parties for an injury or disease and that Folta had also sued manufacturers. View "Folta v. Ferro Eng'g" on Justia Law

Henderson Square Condominium Association sued the developers, alleging: breach of the implied warranty of habitability, fraud, negligence, breach of the Chicago Municipal Code’s prohibition against misrepresenting material facts in the course of marketing and selling real estate. The court dismissed with prejudice, finding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead the Chicago Municipal Code violation and breach of fiduciary duty and that those counts were time-barred. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of those counts and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. The claims at issue are construction-related and governed by the limitation and repose of section 13-214 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the fraud exception applied and issues of material fact remained concerning misrepresentations or actions that could support a finding of fraudulent concealment. The defendants were alleged to be “more than silent” regarding insulation and funding of the reserves. The Municipal Code allows private parties to seek damages under its provisions and there were allegations that defendants had a fiduciary duty to budget for reasonable reserves, given allegedly known latent defects. View "Henderson Square Condo. Assoc'n v. LAB Townhomes, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2010, plaintiff filed a complaint and sought class certification, alleging that defendant sent unsolicited fax advertisement, violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. 227) and the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/2) and constituting common-law conversion of toner and paper. Each count included class allegations indicating that plaintiff was filing on behalf of a class estimated at over 40 individuals. Defendant unsuccessfully sought summary judgment solely on count I (federal Act), alleging that on three separate occasions it tendered an unconditional offer of payment exceeding the total recoverable damages, rendering the claim moot. The court reasoned that defendant did not offer tender on count I before plaintiff moved for class certification and rejected defendant’s argument that the motion was merely a “shell” motion. The appellate court affirmed certification of the class on counts II and III but reversed class certification on count I, agreeing that plaintiff’s initial motion for class certification, filed concurrently with its complaint, was an insufficient “shell” motion. The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the trial court decision, holding that its precedent did not impose any explicit requirements on the motion for class certification, let alone a heightened evidentiary or factual basis for the motion. View "Ballard RN Center, Inc. v. Kohll's Pharmacy & Homecare, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2005, plaintiffs, former Beeland minority shareholders, hired the McGuireWoods law firm to sue Beeland’s managers and majority shareholder, alleging misappropriation of Beeland’s intellectual property. Plaintiffs brought these claims in their individual capacities and derivatively on behalf of Beeland. In 2008, the court dismissed several claims without prejudice all claims. Plaintiffs’ new counsel obtained leave to amend and added counts against Beeland’s corporate counsel, Sidley Austin. The court dismissed all claims against Sidley as untimely and dismissed all individual claims against Sidley on the grounds plaintiffs lacked standing in their individual capacities. In 2011, plaintiffs settled with Rogers; relinquished their ownership interests in Beeland, and, in their individual capacities, sued McGuireWoods for breach of fiduciary duty for failing to timely assert obvious claims against Sidley. The court granted McGuireWoods summary judgment. The appellate court noted that in the underlying action the court never ruled on the merits of derivative claims against Sidley and remanded for a determination as to whether plaintiffs would have been successful in a derivative but for failure to add Sidley in a timely manner. The Illinois Supreme Court held that plaintiffs are bound by the trial court’s determination in the underlying case that they had no standing to bring individual claims against Sidley; even assuming they were successful, plaintiffs could not have collected personally on any judgment against Sidley on the derivative claims. McGuireWoods’s failure to assert claims against Sidley in a timely manner caused no injury to plaintiffs in their individual capacities, which is the only capacity in which they are proceeding. View "Stevens v. McGuireWoods L.L.P." on Justia Law

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