Crawford v. Hayen
179 N.E.3d 957
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background:
- Plaintiff Mark Crawford hired Rosenthal Law Group to represent him in purchasing a Chicago condominium with a seller-disclosed note of "widespread water infiltration issues."
- Seller Stacey Hayen produced only three sets of association minutes and denied there was more; plaintiff later found additional minutes and an undisclosed April 2016 water incident after closing.
- After closing, the association imposed a $17,232.90 special assessment; plaintiff also incurred balcony repairs, floor replacement, and mold-removal costs (totaling at least $31,321.92).
- Plaintiff sued the seller and others; in his third amended complaint he pleaded, in the alternative, a legal malpractice claim (Count VI) against Rosenthal alleging (1) failure to investigate/obtain additional minutes and (2) failure to advise regarding the §22.1 disclosure and need for escrow/cancellation.
- The trial court granted Rosenthal’s section 2-615 motion and dismissed Count VI with prejudice, reasoning the complaint was internally inconsistent and alternative pleading was improper; the appellate court reversed in part and remanded.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of challenge to Count VI | Rosenthal waived objections by answering prior complaints | Answers to superseded/amended complaints do not waive defects in the operative (third) complaint | No waiver: third amended complaint superseded earlier pleadings; Rosenthal may challenge it |
| Breach — failure to investigate/obtain minutes | Rosenthal negligently failed to secure additional board minutes and other info | Seller intentionally withheld info; plaintiff relied on seller, so attorney can’t be sole proximate cause | Insufficiently pleaded: allegations that plaintiff reasonably relied on seller’s misrepresentations undercut a claim that Rosenthal should have discovered the omitted minutes |
| Breach — failure to advise (escrow/cancel) | Rosenthal failed to advise plaintiff on ramifications/options of §22.1 disclosure and to recommend escrow or cancelation | Plaintiff knew some facts (inspector report, disclosures) and was an informed buyer, so no failure-to-advise claim | Sufficiently pleaded: duty to advise existed and failure-to-advise is a factual question for trial |
| Proximate cause & damages | But for Rosenthal’s failure to advise, plaintiff would have escrowed funds or canceled and avoided the assessed losses totaling ≥ $31,321.92 | Seller’s misconduct caused the loss; multiple causes negate malpractice recovery | Proximate cause and actual monetary damages were adequately pleaded; multiple negligent actors do not bar malpractice liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Arora v. Chui, 279 Ill. App. 3d 321 (1996) (general rule that answering an otherwise sufficient complaint can waive defects)
- Burks Drywall, Inc. v. Washington Bank & Trust Co., 110 Ill. App. 3d 569 (1982) (discussion of waiver by answer to complaint)
- Precision Extrusions, Inc. v. Stewart, 36 Ill. App. 2d 30 (1962) (an amendment superseding prior pleadings ordinarily abandons earlier pleadings)
- Saunders v. Michigan Ave. Nat'l Bank, 278 Ill. App. 3d 307 (1996) (same rule on superseding amended pleadings and answers)
- Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422 (2006) (section 2-615 dismissal standard — accept well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences)
- Wakulich v. Mraz, 203 Ill. 2d 223 (2003) (de novo review of a section 2-615 dismissal)
- Preferred Personnel Servs., Inc. v. Meltzer, Purtill & Stelle, LLC, 387 Ill. App. 3d 933 (2009) (elements of legal malpractice action)
- Metrick v. Chatz, 266 Ill. App. 3d 649 (1994) (attorney's duty to explain options and foreseeable risks to client)
- Tirapelli v. Advanced Equities, Inc., 351 Ill. App. 3d 450 (2004) (reasonable reliance and discoverability by ordinary prudence)
- Northern Illinois Emergency Physicians v. Landau, Omaha & Kopka, Ltd., 216 Ill. 2d 294 (2005) (actual damages in malpractice actions must be pleaded and proved)