Illinois Neurospine Institute, P.C. v. Carson
2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 598
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Illinois Neurospine Institute sued Leon Carson for breach of contract seeking $98,276.78 based on a Financial Responsibility Statement attached to the complaint; Carson was personally served on January 27, 2016.
- Carson did not appear or answer; the trial court entered default and later entered judgment on April 15, 2016 for the requested amount.
- Carson moved under 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 on October 20, 2016 to vacate the default judgment, alleging workers’ compensation offsets, overbilling, and that the Financial Responsibility Statement was not authentic or signed; the petition was unverified and lacked an affidavit.
- Plaintiff opposed the petition, arguing Carson failed to show due diligence in defending the suit or in filing the 2-1401 petition and that the petition lacked required affidavit support; plaintiff submitted Dr. Michael’s affidavit asserting the contract and amount owed.
- The trial court granted Carson’s 2-1401 petition; the appellate court reviewed whether the court abused its discretion by relaxing the statutory due-diligence requirement and vacating the default judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner satisfied 2-1401 requirements (meritorious defense, diligence) | Carson failed to plead due diligence or attach affidavit; petition insufficient as matter of law | Carson had meritorious defenses (workers’ comp offsets, overbilling, contract not signed) and equitable relief excuses diligence | Held for plaintiff: Carson did not show due diligence and no extraordinary circumstances justified relaxing the requirement; trial court abused discretion in granting relief |
| Whether equitable exception excuses showing of due diligence | Equitable exception applies only in extraordinary cases of plaintiff misconduct or fraud; not present here | Equitable powers permit vacatur when justice requires, even without diligence | Held for plaintiff: equitable exception limited to extraordinary circumstances (fraud, misconduct); not shown here |
| Whether petition needed verification/affidavit support | Petition lacked verification/affidavit and thus was deficient | Argued new evidence attached to reply sufficed and affidavit not required | Held for plaintiff: verification/affidavit required for factual 2-1401 petitions; petitioner did not establish diligence despite reply materials |
| Whether plaintiff engaged in misconduct warranting relief | Plaintiff impliedly withheld payment history and misled court | Carson argued plaintiff received workers’ comp payment and misled court; thus equity favors vacatur | Held for plaintiff: record does not show plaintiff engaged in misconduct or concealed payments; no basis to relax diligence requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Airoom, Inc., 114 Ill. 2d 209 (Ill. 1986) (section 2-1401 invokes equitable powers but due-diligence requirement may be relaxed only in extraordinary circumstances)
- Warren County Soil & Water Conservation District v. Walters, 2015 IL 117783 (Ill. 2015) (distinction between legal-voidness and factual 2-1401 petitions and appropriate standards of review)
- Paul v. Gerald Adelman & Associates, Ltd., 223 Ill. 2d 85 (Ill. 2006) (due diligence judged by reasonableness of conduct under circumstances)
- European Tanspa, Inc. v. Shrader, 242 Ill. App. 3d 103 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) (relaxation of diligence limited to fraud or other unusual circumstances)
- Bonanza International, Inc. v. Mar-Fil, Inc., 128 Ill. App. 3d 714 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984) (plaintiff misconduct and procedural delay can justify vacatur despite lack of diligence)
- Halle v. Robertson, 219 Ill. App. 3d 564 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991) (relaxation of diligence where plaintiff/counsel misled court or failed to follow procedures)
- Elfman v. Evanston Bus Co., 27 Ill. 2d 609 (Ill. 1963) (plaintiff cannot take advantage of default to obtain damages unrelated to liability)