2020 IL App (1st) 200615
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background:
- County Line sued Glencoe Park District for breach of contract; multiple attorneys represented County Line during the case.
- On June 18, 2014, attorney James Kenney (who had not filed an appearance) participated in settlement discussions; Park District counsel prepared a release and sought dismissal on June 26.
- Collins (County Line’s president) later denied Kenney had authority to settle; trial court nonetheless enforced the settlement on September 23, 2014; this court affirmed on December 23, 2015.
- Plaintiffs filed a legal malpractice suit against Kenney on October 26, 2018 alleging Kenney negotiated and accepted the settlement without authority and fraudulently concealed his conduct.
- The trial court dismissed the malpractice complaint as barred by the two-year malpractice statute of limitations; plaintiffs appealed, arguing fraudulent concealment tolled limitations to five years.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs' malpractice claim is time-barred under the 2-year discovery-based statute | Kenney fraudulently concealed his unauthorized settlement, so plaintiffs only discovered the cause of action when the appellate court affirmed (Dec 23, 2015) or June 18, 2014 baseline; five-year tolling should apply | Plaintiffs had constructive/actual knowledge of the injury by Sept 23, 2014 (trial court enforced settlement); two-year period ran from that date, so the Oct 26, 2018 suit is untimely | Court held limitations began no later than Sept 23, 2014; malpractice suit filed Oct 26, 2018 was time-barred under the 2-year rule |
| Whether the fraudulent-concealment statute (5-year extension) applies to toll limitations | Kenney’s affirmative acts lulled plaintiffs and concealed his conduct, invoking 5-year discovery under §13-215 | Even if concealment occurred, plaintiffs discovered the injury by Sept 23, 2014 and had sufficient time within the 2-year period; §13-215 therefore does not extend the time | Court held §13-215 did not apply because plaintiffs had knowledge by Sept 23, 2014 and thus a reasonable time remained to file within two years |
| Whether appellant’s other arguments (leave to amend; denial of reconsideration) merit relief | Appellants argued trial court abused discretion | Kenney defended dismissal and reconsideration order | Court found these arguments forfeited for lack of developed briefing and did not reach them |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferguson v. City of Chicago, 213 Ill. 2d 94 (de novo review of section 2‑619 dismissal)
- Khan v. Deutsche Bank AG, 2012 IL 112219 (explaining discovery rule for malpractice actions)
- Knox College v. Celotex Corp., 88 Ill. 2d 407 (when plaintiff has enough information to trigger inquiry notice)
- Nolan v. Johns‑Manville Asbestos, 85 Ill. 2d 161 (duty to inquire starts the limitations clock)
- Northern Illinois Emergency Physicians v. Landau, Omahana & Kopka, Ltd., 216 Ill. 2d 294 (plaintiff not injured for malpractice until monetary loss occurs)
- Hermitage Corp. v. Contractors Adjustment Co., 166 Ill. 2d 72 (plaintiff’s duty to investigate once suspicious facts are known)
- Turner v. Nama, 294 Ill. App. 3d 19 (§13‑215 fraudulent concealment does not extend time if plaintiff discovered the concealment with reasonable time remaining)
- Castello v. Kalis, 352 Ill. App. 3d 736 (distinguishing knowledge of injury/wrongful cause from knowledge of specific defendant)