K&K Iron Works, Inc. v. Marc Realty, LLC
21 N.E.3d 1190
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- K&K Iron Works sued LPAC Broadway Realty, Klein Construction, and Marc Realty for unpaid construction work; K&K sought about $228,515.20. Marc Realty answered (general denial) but never filed counterclaims or affirmative defenses.
- The case was litigated for years, with multiple motions and rulings; partial summary judgment limited LPAC’s delay-damages claim shortly before trial. Trial was ultimately set for October 1, 2013 and continued to October 2, 2013.
- On the morning trial began, Marc Realty terminated its longtime counsel (Bradley Staubus) and sought a continuance to obtain substitute counsel, asserting an unspecified “inherent conflict.” A corporate representative (Allen Glass) appeared in court for Marc Realty.
- The trial court allowed counsel to withdraw but denied Marc Realty’s motion for a continuance, explaining the termination was untimely and would unfairly inconvenience other parties; the court proceeded to trial.
- The court entered judgment for K&K against LPAC and Marc Realty (jointly and severally) for $152,431.98. Marc Realty appealed solely on the continuance/withdrawal issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing counsel to withdraw and denying Marc Realty a continuance to retain new counsel | Court acted within discretion; plaintiff argued trial should proceed after long preparation and an abrupt late firing of counsel does not compel continuance | Marc Realty argued it fired counsel because of an "inherent conflict" and needed time (10–21 days/21-day Rule 13 period) to obtain new counsel; proceeding pro se would cause prejudice and a six-figure loss | Denial affirmed: no abuse of discretion; termination was untimely, no sufficient grave reason shown, and Marc Realty had opportunities earlier to seek substitution/continuance |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Ward, 282 Ill. App. 3d 423 (1996) (trial-court continuance decisions rest in sound discretion and require especially grave reasons once trial is reached)
- Wine v. Bauerfreund, 155 Ill. App. 3d 19 (1987) (continuance denial will be reversed only for palpable injustice or manifest abuse of discretion)
- Meyerson v. Software Club of America, Inc., 142 Ill. App. 3d 87 (1986) (corporation’s late discharge of counsel and failure to seek timely continuance may justify trial proceeding without counsel)
- Thomas v. Thomas, 23 Ill. App. 3d 936 (1974) (denial of continuance proper where party had ample prior opportunity to retain counsel and no prejudice shown)
- Ali v. Jones, 239 Ill. App. 3d 844 (1993) (Rule 13 transition period supports continuance when counsel seeks to withdraw shortly before trial, but facts differ when client fires counsel)
- Miller v. In re Marriage of Miller, 273 Ill. App. 3d 64 (1995) (Rule 13(c)(2) may require up to a 21-day transition after court grants withdrawal; waiver may follow if substitute counsel proceeds without seeking delay)