KOCZOR v. Melnyk
407 Ill. App. 3d 994
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiffs filed legal malpractice claim in February 2009 against defendant alleging failure to properly record deeds from a 1997 real estate transaction.
- The alleged malpractice centered on defendant's failure to record deeds and to provide notice after the redemption period, causing title issues.
- The last act or omission underlying the claim occurred when the deeds should have been recorded, with the court below determining the last act date as January 14, 2001.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing the six-year statute of repose under 735 ILCS 5/13-214.3 expired January 14, 2007, making the 2009 filing time-barred.
- Plaintiffs argued equitable estoppel tolled the repose and sought to amend to add an equitable-estoppel count; the trial court granted summary judgment, and later denied leave to amend.
- On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court reviewed de novo whether equitable estoppel tolled the repose and whether the denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does equitable estoppel toll the statute of repose? | Koczor contends defendant's assurances delayed filing, triggering estoppel. | Melnyk argues estoppel does not apply because there were no misrepresentations known to be false. | Equitable estoppel does not toll the statute of repose. |
| Is the action untimely under the six-year repose period? | Repose expired later than filing date due to tolling theory. | Repose expired January 14, 2007; filing in 2009 is untimely. | Motion for summary judgment affirmed; filing was untimely under 13-214.3. |
| Was there a misrepresentation sufficient to support estoppel? | Defendant's promises to record deeds induced delay in filing. | No misrepresentation; defendant did not know of error until 2007 and did not mislead plaintiff. | No misrepresentation established; estoppel not supported. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reconsider and deny leave to amend? | Proposed amended complaint would cure deficiencies and add equitable-estoppel count. | No proper motion or proposed amendment; court acted within discretion. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Was the record sufficient to preserve the issue of amendment and estoppel on appeal? | Record should show oral motion to amend and denial. | Record insufficient; appellate review should presume trial court ruling was proper. | Record supports affirming denial; issues not preserved for reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeLuna v. Burciaga, 223 Ill.2d 49 (2006) (estoppel requires misrepresentation known to be true to be untrue)
- Jackson Jordan, Inc. v. Leydig, Voit & Mayer, 158 Ill.2d 240 (1994) (needing reasonable reliance on representations to toll repose)
- Barratt v. Goldberg, 296 Ill.App.3d 252 (1998) (basis of malpractice cannot itself ground estoppel)
- McIntosh v. Cueto, 323 Ill.App.3d 384 (2001) (no estoppel where plaintiff knew or could easily learn no action had been filed)
- DeLuna, Hester v. Diaz, 346 Ill.App.3d 550 (2004) (continuing misrepresentations support estoppel; distinguishable from present case)
- Trogi v. Diabri & Vicari, P.C., 362 Ill.App.3d 93 (2005) (statute of repose runs from last representation; last act matters)
- O'Brien v. Scovil, 332 Ill.App.3d 1088 (2002) (last act rule for repose computations)
- Ferguson v. McKenzie, 202 Ill.2d 304 (2001) (statute of repose aims to terminate liability after defined period)