Herns v. Symphony Jackson Square LLC
189 N.E.3d 905
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- Plaintiff Marilyn Herns, as guardian of the estate of Clematine Leonard, sued Symphony Jackson Square LLC (Symphony) under the Nursing Home Care Act and Maestro Consulting Services, LLC (Maestro) for negligence arising from pressure sores developed while Leonard was a nursing-home resident.
- At admission Herns signed an admission contract and a health-care arbitration agreement (HCA) on Leonard’s behalf; defendants moved to compel arbitration under the HCA.
- Herns produced a 2010 statutory power of attorney (POA) showing she was Leonard’s attorney-in-fact but that Leonard had struck out the POA authority for “claims and litigation.”
- After defendants challenged Herns’s authority, Herns obtained an order appointing her limited guardian of Leonard’s estate and filed a second amended complaint in that capacity.
- The trial court denied defendants’ section 2-619(a)(9) motion to compel arbitration (finding factual questions about agency/authority) and denied a section 2-619(a)(5) statute-of-limitations dismissal (finding a factual question about legal disability). Defendants appealed under Rule 307(a)(1).
- The appellate court reversed the denial of the motion to compel arbitration and remanded for a summary proceeding under section 2(a) of the Uniform Arbitration Act; it dismissed the appeal as to the limitations denial for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Herns had actual or apparent authority to bind Leonard to the HCA | Herns lacked authority because the POA expressly excluded "claims and litigation," and the HCA is unconscionable | Herns had authority (as attorney-in-fact/authorized representative) and thus the HCA compels arbitration | Reversed trial court; remanded for summary proceeding under Uniform Act §2(a) to decide arbitrability and related issues (including unconscionability) |
| Whether Maestro has standing to appeal the denial of the motion to compel | Maestro lacks standing because the order named only Symphony | Motion to compel was joint; the denial affected Maestro’s interests too | Maestro has standing to appeal |
| Whether the trial court may deny a motion to compel without making substantive findings when the opposing party disputes agreement existence | Trial court correctly denied based on factual disputes | Section 2(a) requires a summary proceeding and substantive disposition when existence of the arbitration agreement is denied | Trial court’s denial without substantive findings was improper; appellate court remanded for a summary disposition consistent with §2(a) |
| Whether the denial of defendants’ section 2-619(a)(5) statute-of-limitations motion is reviewable on Rule 307(a)(1) interlocutory appeal | Denial not injunctive; no Rule 307 jurisdiction | Sought to include that ruling in interlocutory appeal | Appeal of limitations denial dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it is not injunctive and does not bear directly on arbitrability |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. Blockbuster Entm’t, Inc., 338 Ill. App. 3d 171 (2003) (when existence of arbitration agreement is denied, court must proceed summarily under Uniform Act §2(a) and make substantive findings)
- Glazer’s Distributors of Illinois, Inc. v. NWS-Illinois, LLC, 376 Ill. App. 3d 411 (2007) (limiting review on Rule 307 to prior rulings that bear directly on the injunction appealed)
- Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Ctr. v. Berlin, 268 Ill. App. 3d 184 (1994) (orders directly bearing on injunctive relief may be reviewed on Rule 307 appeal)
- Williams v. Jo-Carroll Energy, Inc., 382 Ill. App. 3d 781 (2008) (unconscionability is a question of law)
- In re A Minor, 127 Ill. 2d 247 (1989) (definition and nature of injunctional relief)
- In re Petition of Filippelli, 207 Ill. App. 3d 813 (1990) (Rule 307 does not open review of all prior interlocutory orders unless they bear directly on the injunctive order)