Illinois Neurospine Institute, P.C. v. Carson
2017 IL App (1st) 163386
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Illinois Neurospine Institute sued Leon Carson for breach of a written "Financial Responsibility Statement," seeking ~$98,276.78; Carson was personally served on January 27, 2016.
- A default was entered March 10, 2016; after a damages prove-up the court entered judgment April 15, 2016 for $98,276.78.
- Carson filed a section 2-1401 petition on October 20, 2016 to vacate the default judgment, alleging (inter alia) workers’ compensation offsets, excessive charges, and an unsigned/inauthentic contract; the petition was unverified and initially lacked Carson’s affidavit.
- Plaintiff opposed, arguing Carson failed to plead or prove due diligence and the petition lacked a supporting affidavit; plaintiff attached an affidavit from Dr. Michael asserting the financial statement was executed and prior communications with defense counsel.
- The trial court granted Carson’s 2-1401 petition; on appeal the Appellate Court reviewed whether Carson satisfied the statutory due-diligence requirements or showed extraordinary circumstances warranting relaxation of the diligence requirement.
- The appellate court reversed, concluding Carson failed to show due diligence and presented no extraordinary circumstances to excuse that failure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2-1401 petition satisfied the statutory due-diligence requirements | Carson did not allege or prove due diligence in responding to the suit or in filing the 2-1401 petition; petition was unverified | Carson argued he was consumed with pending personal-injury litigation, believed bills were satisfied, and filed promptly after learning of the judgment and settlement | Held: Carson failed to show due diligence; trial court abused its discretion in granting relief |
| Whether equitable exception permits vacatur absent due diligence | Plaintiff: equitable exception applies only in extraordinary cases (fraud, concealment, misconduct by plaintiff); none here | Carson: justice and good conscience require vacatur despite lack of diligence because of meritorious defenses (unsigned contract; improper balance-billing; excessive fees) | Held: No extraordinary circumstances; mere assertion of defenses does not excuse diligence requirement |
| Whether an affidavit/verification was required to support the 2-1401 petition | Plaintiff: petition was defective because unverified and unsupported by affidavit | Carson: later submitted affidavits and argued new evidence excused formalities | Held: Although the court considered affidavits filed later, the dispositive failure was lack of due diligence; absence of a timely verified petition was a weakness but the opinion focuses on diligence |
| Whether Carson showed a meritorious defense sufficient to warrant equitable relief | Plaintiff: defenses unproven and would not by themselves relax diligence requirement | Carson: asserted meritorious defenses (workers’ comp payment/offset, contract invalid, overcharges) | Held: Meritorious defenses alleged but insufficient to excuse lack of diligence or to invoke the equitable exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Airoom, Inc., 114 Ill.2d 209 (Illinois 1986) (frames 2-1401 relief, due diligence rule, and narrow equitable exception)
- Paul v. Gerald Adelman & Associates, Ltd., 223 Ill.2d 85 (Illinois 2006) (due diligence judged by reasonableness under the circumstances)
- Warren County Soil & Water Conservation District v. Walters, 2015 IL 117783 (Illinois 2015) (distinguishes legal vs. factual 2-1401 challenges and standard of review)
- European Tanspa, Inc. v. Shrader, 242 Ill. App. 3d 103 (Ill. App. Ct.) (equitable relief requires extraordinary circumstances like plaintiff misconduct)
- Bonanza International, Inc. v. Mar-Fil, Inc., 128 Ill. App. 3d 714 (Ill. App. Ct.) (equitable vacatur where plaintiff conduct cast doubt on judgment fairness)
- Halle v. Robertson, 219 Ill. App. 3d 564 (Ill. App. Ct.) (relaxation of diligence where plaintiff or counsel engaged in conduct that made the judgment unconscionable)