Buchanan v. Legan
92 N.E.3d 600
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Hannah born in 1997 to Susan during her marriage to James Buchanan; dissolution (1999) adjudicated James a joint custodial parent.
- Susan filed two parentage petitions in 2011: the first (filed Mar. 7) was stipulated dismissed with prejudice as to that cause of action; the second (filed May 6) named both James and Michael Legan and sought to disestablish James and establish Legan as Hannah’s father (including DNA, visitation, and support).
- A guardian ad litem and a court-appointed child representative were appointed; the child representative (on Hannah’s behalf) moved to dismiss the second 2011 petition, arguing the action was time‑barred under the two‑year statute.
- In July 2012 the trial court granted the child representative’s motion to dismiss; the order did not specify whether dismissal was with or without prejudice and was not appealed or clarified.
- After turning 18, Hannah filed an amended petition in 2016 seeking only a determination of paternity as to Legan (not seeking to disestablish James). Legan moved to dismiss under section 2‑619, arguing res judicata (and statute of limitations).
- The trial court held the 2012 dismissal operated as a dismissal with prejudice and, applying res judicata, dismissed Hannah’s 2016 petition. Hannah appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hannah) | Defendant's Argument (Legan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2012 dismissal was voluntary (without prejudice) or a final adjudication (with prejudice) | The 2012 motion was a voluntary dismissal; voluntary dismissal does not produce res judicata, so Hannah may litigate paternity after turning 18 | The 2012 dismissal was effectively with prejudice/a final adjudication on the merits; res judicata bars relitigation | Court held the dismissal was a final adjudication (with prejudice) because the order did not state "without prejudice," the record showed the claim was time‑barred, and no party sought clarification; res judicata applied |
| Whether Legan made a judicial admission in the 2012 proceeding precluding his res judicata defense | Hannah contends Legan’s 2012 filing conceded dismissal should be without prejudice and thus made a judicial admission | Legan argued his 2012 statement did not constitute a judicial admission on the legal effect of dismissal and he may raise res judicata | Court held Legan’s statements were not judicial admissions (they were legal conclusions) and did not preclude his res judicata defense |
Key Cases Cited
- River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 184 Ill. 2d 290 (1998) (explaining res judicata elements and that it bars issues that were or could have been decided in prior action)
- Illinois Graphics Co. v. Nickum, 159 Ill. 2d 469 (1994) (when dismissal motion is silent, courts must infer nature of dismissal from grounds, requests, and treatment)
- Richter v. Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc., 2016 IL 119518 (2016) (when a dismissal order fails to specify "without prejudice," it is treated as a final adjudication on the merits)
- Curtis v. Lofy, 394 Ill. App. 3d 170 (2009) (standard of review for res judicata application is de novo)
- In re Estate of Rennick, 181 Ill. 2d 395 (1998) (defines judicial admission as a clear, deliberate, unequivocal statement by a party about a concrete fact)