2011 IL App (2d) 110061
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- A.P. Properties, Inc. sues Mitchell Rattner and Mariann Weiss for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.
- Plaintiff had tax-sale certificates and petitioned for tax deeds on properties in Gurnee and Ingleside.
- Defendants purchased delinquent properties shortly before redemption, preventing plaintiff from obtaining tax deeds.
- Illinois tax-sale process allows redemption; the state indemnity fund and redemption framework influence incentives.
- Plaintiff later amends to pursue unjust enrichment, and the trial court dismisses this amended claim with prejudice; the original tortious-interference claim is not re-litigated on appeal.
- Appellate court affirms dismissal of the amended unjust-enrichment claim, holding no unjust enrichment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether forfeiture bars review of the tortious-interference claim. | Plaintiff argues forfeiture does not apply due to overlap with amended claim. | Defendants contend plaintiff abandoned tortious-interference theory by not repleading. | Yes; forfeiture applies; dismissed unless incorporated. |
| Whether the amended complaint states a claim for unjust enrichment. | Plaintiff contends defendants were unjustly enriched by exploiting the redemption process. | Defendants argue no unjust enrichment because the tax-sale framework permits such purchases. | Amended complaint fails to state unjust enrichment claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boatmen's National Bank of Belleville v. Direct Lines, Inc., 167 Ill.2d 88 (1995) (forfeiture rule preserves review when an amended complaint abandons a theory)
- Foxcroft Townhome Owners Ass'n v. Hoffman Rosner Corp., 96 Ill.2d 150 (1983) (amendments can forfeit earlier objections if not incorporated)
- Bonhomme v. St. James, 407 Ill.App.3d 1080 (2011) (incorporation of claims needed to preserve issues on appeal)
- Marek v. O.B. Gyne Specialists II, S.C., 319 Ill.App.3d 690 (2001) (amendments relate back to avoid statute of limitations (different context))
- Zurich Insurance Co. v. Baxter International, Inc., 275 Ill.App.3d 30 (1995) (forfeiture not always applicable; procedural issues may be reviewed)
- Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. v. Pappas, 194 Ill.2d 99 (2000) (public policy favoring redemption over forfeiture)
- In re McKinney, 341 B.R. 892 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.2006) (tax-buyer's contingent right to possibly acquire title)
- Adams v. Thorp Credit, Inc., 452 N.W.2d 435 (Iowa 1990) (public policy favoring redemption over forfeiture)