Gaylor v. Campion, Curran, Rausch, Gummerson and Dunlop, P.C., 980 N.E.2d 215

Plaintiffs allege legal malpractice and fraud arising from the Ions, Inc. EL technology transaction with Bettis.
Trial court dismissed the fraud count; the case proceeded on a one-count legal-malpractice claim resulting in a $182,625 verdict for plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs alleged defendants failed to obtain separate counsel, failed to perform due diligence on Bettis’s patents, and failed to protect plaintiffs’ interests at closing.
Closing documents granted Ions an exclusive license and anticipated transfer of EL IP, but plaintiffs claim Bettis’s patents were not properly owned or transferred.
Plaintiffs maintained an attorney-client relationship with the Campion firm, Gummerson, and Lockwood; defendants allegedly misrepresented expertise and the existence of Bettis’s patents.
Damages sought exceeded $400,000; posttrial motions challenged the damages award as manifestly inadequate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation of the fraud count	Gaylor preserves fraud count via motion to amend.	Foxcroft waiver applies; fraud count not preserved.	Fraud count waived; not preserved for review.
Damages adequacy	Damages were proven and the award is manifestly inadequate.	Damages within range; not manifestly defective.	Damages not manifestly inadequate; affirmed.

Foxcroft Townhome Owners Ass’n v. Hoffman Rosner Corp., 96 Ill. 2d 150 (1983) (establishes Foxcroft waiver rule for dismissed claims)
Bonhomme v. St. James, 2012 IL 112393 (2012) (clarifies preservation methods for dismissed claims)
Boatmen’s National Bank of Belleville v. Direct Lines, Inc., 167 Ill. 2d 88 (1995) (rejects expansion of preservation based on court’s assurances)
Russ v. Pension Consultants Co., 182 Ill. App. 3d 769 (1989) (discusses preservation when leave to amend is denied)
Silver Fox Limousine v. City of Chicago, 306 Ill. App. 3d 103 (1999) (addresses preservation despite trial court actions)