Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Munizzo
986 N.E.2d 1238
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Munizzo excavated on property after JULIE notification; Com Ed marked lines; a transformer line was damaged causing outages and a repair bill to Munizzo; judgments given December 13, 2011 against both sides; Munizzo sought Rule 137 sanctions, filed January 11, 2012 attaching petition; trial court denied as untimely but ruled on merits; Munizzo appealed arguing tolling and merits; court held Rule 137 petition tolls Rule 303(a)(1) and jurisdiction exists; trial court also granted in limine barring Consumer Fraud Act discussion; consumer fraud counterclaim dismissed for lack of consumer status under the Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does filing a Rule 137 motion toll the Rule 303(a)(1) appeal period in a small-claims case? | Munizzo says the Rule 137 filing tolls the 30-day period. | Com Ed argues the tolling does not occur in this context. | Yes; filing tolls the period. |
| Was Munizzo's Rule 137 motion timely and properly characterized by the trial court? | Munizzo contends the motion was timely as a pending Rule 137 claim. | Com Ed argued it was untimely; merits lacked basis. | Motion timely; trial court erred in deeming it untimely. |
| Did the trial court err in granting in limine to bar Consumer Fraud Act discussion? | Munizzo asserts consumer fraud status and fact issues were present. | Com Ed argues Munizzo is not a consumer and Act exclusive jurisdiction issues apply. | Correctly granted; Munizzo not a consumer; Consumer Fraud Act claim barred. |
| Should Munizzo’s consumer fraud counterclaim have been allowed to proceed? | Munizzo claims misrepresentations related to markings and billing implicate the Act. | Com Ed disputes consumer status and misuse of Act. | Not allowed; consumer fraud claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bolin v. Sosamon, 181 Ill. App. 3d 442 (1989) (filing petition for leave tolls appeal period in small claims)
- Besic v. Lattof Chevrolet, Inc., 2012 IL App (1st) 103185 (2012) (Rule 287(b) leave not jurisdictional; tolling analysis)
- Peterson v. Randhava, 313 Ill. App. 3d 1 (2000) (Rule 137 timing across proceedings)
- Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School, 69 Ill. 2d 320 (1977) (defines consumer status under Consumer Fraud Act)
- Norton v. City of Chicago, 267 Ill. App. 3d 507 (1994) (consumer protection context)
- Citibank, N.A. v. McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, 2011 IL App (1st) 102427 (2011) (abuse of discretion standard for motions in limine)
- Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d 21 (2009) (abuse of discretion standard guidance)
- Rubino v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 324 Ill. App. 3d 931 (2001) (reasonableness standard for Rule 137 sanctions)