2021 IL App (1st) 200331
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- Alyce K. Newman, alleged to be in the early stages of dementia, made May 2017 estate-plan changes at Katten Muchin Rosenman after being isolated and influenced by her son Leonard.
- P. Andre Katz (Andre) learned of the changes and filed for temporary guardianship on June 9, 2017; he notified Katten of his appointment that day.
- During the guardianship proceeding, Katten attorney Michael Hartz was deposed (Nov. 16, 2017); he testified Katten had no standard mental-capacity assessment, relied on conversation with Ms. Newman, and inserted a provision favoring Leonard’s input on incapacity.
- Andre, as limited guardian, sued Katten on June 27, 2019 for legal malpractice (Count I), unjust enrichment (Count III), and tortious interference (Count II), alleging Katten negligently failed to assess Ms. Newman’s capacity.
- Katten moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-619 as time-barred under the two-year limitations statute for attorney actions; the circuit court granted dismissal with prejudice.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that whether Andre was on inquiry notice of claims against Katten is a factual question and that tolling for the mother’s disability likely applies to claims brought on her behalf.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the 2-year limitations period accrue under 735 ILCS 5/13-214.3(b) (discovery rule)? | Andre: accrual occurred when he deposed Hartz (Nov. 16, 2017) and learned Katten may have negligently failed to assess capacity. | Katten: accrual occurred by June 9, 2017 (guardianship petition), when Andre knew of the estate changes and Katten’s involvement, putting him on inquiry notice. | Reversed district court dismissal; accrual as to Katten is a question of fact (cannot be decided as matter of law on present record) and remanded. |
| Whether Andre’s knowledge of Leonard’s wrongdoing put him on reasonable inquiry to discover claims against Katten | Andre: Leonard’s conduct and Katten’s role were distinct; a reasonable inquiry into Leonard might not reveal Katten’s negligent conduct until Hartz’s deposition. | Katten: Leonard’s scheme relied on Katten’s assistance; Andre’s petition and contact with Hartz show he was on inquiry notice of Katten’s possible liability by June 9, 2017. | Court: neither side wins as a matter of law; factual discrepancies about Ms. Newman’s condition and what Andre reasonably knew preclude dismissal. |
| Whether statutory tolling for minors/disabled persons (735 ILCS 5/13-214.3(e)) defeats limitations for claims brought on behalf of Ms. Newman | Andre: Ms. Newman’s cognitive impairment tolled the two-year period for claims brought on her behalf. | Katten: Because Andre held power of attorney and could act for his mother, her disability should not toll claims she could have pursued; cited contrary authority (nonprecedential). | Court: Although the tolling issue was raised late below (forfeiture), the court addressed the merits and indicated tolling likely applies to claims asserted on Ms. Newman’s behalf; remand required to resolve. |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice under section 2-619 was appropriate | Andre: Dismissal improper because material factual disputes exist about inquiry notice and tolling. | Katten: Timeliness clear as a matter of law; dismissal proper. | Court: Dismissal with prejudice reversed; remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evanston Ins. Co. v. Riseborough, 2014 IL 114271 (Illinois Supreme Court) (section 13-214.3(b) limitations period applies broadly to attorney-related claims)
- Janousek v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, 2015 IL App (1st) 142989 (Ill. App. Ct.) (claims against law firm were time-barred where plaintiff had earlier notice and claims were intertwined)
- Landreth v. Raymond P. Fabricius, P.C., 2018 IL App (3d) 150760 (Ill. App. Ct.) (whether plaintiff had reason to inquire into attorney liability can be a factual question)
- Mitsias v. I-Flow Corp., 2011 IL App (1st) 101126 (Ill. App. Ct.) (discovery rule cannot be satisfied where the true cause was unknowable to plaintiff)
- Knox Coll. v. Celotex Corp., 88 Ill. 2d 407 (Ill. 1981) (whether information should have put plaintiff on inquiry is usually a question of fact)
- Dancor Int’l, Ltd. v. Friedman, Goldberg & Mintz, 288 Ill. App. 3d 666 (Ill. App. Ct.) (discovery rule requires reasonable belief that injury was wrongfully caused to trigger duty to inquire)