Hachem v. Chicago Title Insurance Company
46 N.E.3d 879
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- In May–August 2012 Sanaa Hachem contracted to buy 10353 S. Seeley Ave., Chicago; sellers (Steven and Cheryl Wolfe) agreed to provide a title commitment and obtained an owners title policy from Chicago Title Insurance Company.
- The Wolfe defendants conveyed the property to plaintiffs on August 20, 2012.
- After closing, Hachem discovered a recorded January 20, 1982 ordinance designating the property part of the Longwood Drive landmark district.
- Hachem submitted a claim to Chicago Title alleging the landmark designation was an encumbrance; Chicago Title denied coverage, stating Hachem was not an insured and the policy excluded the matter.
- Plaintiffs sued Chicago Title and its agent (Count I) for breach of the owners policy and sued the Wolfe sellers (Count II) alleging failure to disclose the landmark designation and failure to identify the property as landmarked.
- The circuit court granted Chicago Title’s 2-615 dismissal with prejudice (Dec. 2013) and later dismissed the Wolfes’ claims with prejudice (May 2014); plaintiffs’ motions to amend and to reconsider were denied and plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused discretion in denying Hachem leave to amend Count I (Chicago Title) after dismissal | Hachem argued she could cure defects and should be allowed to amend | Chicago Title argued dismissal with prejudice was final and plaintiffs provided no cure or timely amendment request | Denied: amendment untimely; dismissal was final and plaintiffs gave no basis to cure; court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether the court erred in dismissing the Wolfe defendants under section 2-615 | Hachem argued Wolfe failed to disclose the landmark designation and failed to identify the property as landmarked | Wolfe argued contract limited obligations, plaintiffs had constructive notice via recorded ordinance, and the ordinance did not place plaque/identification duty on sellers | Affirmed: contract conveyed title subject to restrictions of record; plaintiffs charged with constructive notice; ordinance assigned plaque duty to Commission, not sellers |
| Whether denial of plaintiffs’ oral motion to amend at the Wolfe dismissal hearing was erroneous | Hachem contended amendment would cure defects and was timely | Wolfe noted plaintiffs did not supply record of oral motion and failed to show prejudice or a cure | Affirmed: no transcript of oral motion provided, so presumption the court acted properly; plaintiffs failed to preserve record for review |
| Whether the court abused discretion in denying motions to reconsider (both sets of defendants) | Hachem argued errors in law/fact warranted reconsideration | Defendants argued motions were untimely or raised no new evidence/law and earlier rulings were correct | Affirmed: motions untimely as to Chicago Title; no new evidence or change in law as to Wolfe; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Loyola Academy v. S&S Roof Maintenance, Inc., 146 Ill. 2d 263 (Ill. 1992) (factors for evaluating amendment requests and appellate review of denial)
- Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422 (Ill. 2006) (standard for section 2-615 motions: accept well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences)
- Gillen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 215 Ill. 2d 381 (Ill. 2005) (limits on what a court may consider on a 2-615 motion)
- Bajwa v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 208 Ill. 2d 414 (Ill. 2004) (exhibits attached to a complaint control over conflicting allegations)
- Compton v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 382 Ill. App. 3d 323 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (dismissal with prejudice is final judgment and bars post-judgment amendments)
- Eckland v. Jankowski, 407 Ill. 263 (Ill. 1950) (purchaser charged with constructive notice from public records)