Law Offices of Colleen M. v. First Star
963 N.E.2d 968
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiff Law Offices of Colleen M. McLaughlin represented Alexandria Kondenar in a discrimination suit against First Star Financial Corp., Johnson, and Dumas.
- Defendants and First Star executed a settlement on February 18–22, 2008; the agreement provided two $12,500 payments to Kondenar and the law office.
- The second installment was paid only in part ($6,000), with Johnson and Dumas refusing further payment.
- Plaintiff filed a small-claims breach-of-contract suit on September 16, 2009, attaching the settlement to the complaint.
- At trial, the court admitted a photocopy of the settlement into evidence and entered judgment for $6,500 plus costs; the court later remanded to correct the payment recipient language.
- The appellate court remands to reflect that payments must be made to both the law office and Kondenar jointly under the settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff had standing to sue on the settlement. | McLaughlin was a party to the agreement and could enforce. | Only First Star and Kondenar had standing; plaintiff lacked privity. | Plaintiff had standing; remand to reflect joint payment. |
| Whether admitting a photocopy of the settlement violated the best evidence rule or 2-606. | Copy attached to complaint is part of pleading and authentic. | Photocopy requires foundation/authenticity; best evidence rule applies. | Admissible under Bowman, 2-606, and Rule 286(b) given small-claims context. |
| Whether the denial of a directed finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Evidence established all elements of breach; contract existed and breach occurred. | Insufficient proof of breach and damages. | Not against the manifest weight; breach established, damages shown. |
| Whether judgment as entered reflected the contract language; remedy on remand. | Language required payment to both plaintiff and client. | Judgment in favor of plaintiff only; no double obligation language addressed. | Not against weight; remand to correct to payment to McLaughlin and Kondenar jointly. |
Key Cases Cited
- AIDA v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., 332 Ill.App.3d 154 (2002) (standing defense; affirmative defense on 2-619)
- Glisson v. City of Marion, 188 Ill.2d 211 (1999) (standing and injury requirements)
- In re Chicago Flood Litigation, 176 Ill.2d 179 (1997) (standing and burden of proof; de novo review on 2-619)
- Wexler v. Wirtz Corp., 211 Ill.2d 18 (2004) (de novo review standard for 2-619 standing issues)
- Bowman v. People, 95 Ill.App.3d 1137 (1981) (duplicate evidence admissibility; best evidence rule exception)
- Gore v. Indiana Insurance Co., 376 Ill.App.3d 282 (2007) (2-606 exhibits; attachments treated as part of pleading)
- Chiappetti v. Knapp, 20 Ill.App.3d 538 (1974) (attorney-fee contracts as settlement consideration)
- Sutton v. Chicago Rys. Co., 258 Ill. 551 (1913) (fee-shifting as part of settlement consideration)