Ennenga v. Starns, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7638

Ennengas' estate was worth $3–$4 million; 2000 revision created a trust dividing one-third to each child, with George under a spendthrift Trust and Connie/Lucie having unlimited access; India would receive a per-capita share after George's death.
Attorneyst Burt (IL) and Stortz (MN) drafted the trust; Starns ( Connie’s husband) served as trustee; the couple sought to ensure George's restricted access and equal treatment of grandchildren overall.
In 2002 Tom Ennenga videotaped discussions and omitted mentioning Connie, Lucie, or India, which was later argued as an omission rather than a change in intent.
After the Ennengas died in 2004, George and India challenged the home sale in state court; they later abandoned that claim and were dismissed.
In 2006 George and India filed a federal suit asserting legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty; India’s minor status tolled the statute of limitations; district court dismissed most claims as untimely or barred by res judicata, with India’s claim surviving against some parties.
On appeal, Seventh Circuit held: appellate jurisdiction exists despite a non-final dismissal without prejudice; Illinois' borrowing statute and limitations applied; George's claim is time-barred; fiduciary-duty claims barred by res judicata; India’s malpractice claim dismissed with prejudice on merits and remanded to reflect prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal has jurisdiction over a dismissal without prejudice	George/India contend the dismissal lacked finality	District court closed case; appellate review permitted	Appellate jurisdiction exists; district court finished the case.
Which statute of limitations applies to George's legal malpractice claim	Minnesota limitations should apply due to Starns/Stortz	Illinois applies under its choice-of-law rules	Illinois statute applies; borrowing statute not controlling here.
Whether George's claim is timely given equitable tolling/fraudulent concealment	Fraudulent concealment tolls limitations	No tolling; discovery before expiration	Equitable tolling does not apply; claim untimely.
Whether George's legal malpractice claim is untimely under 735 ILCS 5/13-214.3(d)	Injury occurred at George's father's death; two-year limit applies	probate-related deadlines shorten the limit; filed June 2006	Claim untimely; barred by Illinois statute.
Whether fiduciary-duty/aiding-and-abetting claims are barred by res judicata	State suit didn't resolve all issues; not barred	State case had final dismissal on merits; precludes here	Res judicata bars fiduciary-duty and aiding-and-abetting claims.

Mostly Memories, Inc. v. For Your Ease Only, Inc., 526 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir. 2008) (courts must determine appellate jurisdiction sua sponte)
Doss v. Clearwater Title Co., 551 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2008) (dismissal without prejudice finality analysis)
Hill v. Potter, 352 F.3d 1142 (7th Cir. 2003) (framework for appellate jurisdiction in dismissals)
Perry v. Sullivan, 207 F.3d 379 (7th Cir. 2000) (waiver of statute-of-limitations defense in successive motions)
River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 184 Ill.2d 290, 234 Ill.Dec. 783, 703 N.E.2d 883 (Ill. 1998) (res judicata requires final judgment, identity of causes, and identity of parties)
Weisman v. Schiller, Ducanto & Fleck, 314 Ill.App.3d 577, 248 Ill.Dec. 143, 733 N.E.2d 818 (Ill. App. 2000) (jury-trial access and res judicata implications in malpractice scenarios)
Ogle v. Fuiten, 112 Ill.App.3d 1048, 68 Ill.Dec. 491, 445 N.E.2d 1344 (Ill. App. 1984) (extrinsic evidence in legal malpractice disputes regarding intent)
Pelham v. Griesheimer, 92 Ill.2d 13, 64 Ill.Dec. 544, 440 N.E.2d 96 (1982) (duty of care for attorney malpractice; intended beneficiary)
Chicago Title Land Trust Co. v. Potash Corp., 664 F.3d 1075 (7th Cir. 2011) (res judicata extends to matters that might have been raised)
Weissman v. Schiller, Weisman v. Schiller, Ducanto & Fleck (2000) (inapplicable rationale cited in support of res judicata defense)