Snyder v. Heidelberger
2011 IL 111052
| Ill. | 2011Background
- Judith Snyder sued attorney Elliot Heidelberger for legal malpractice over a quitclaim deed drafted in 1997.
- The deed was intended to create a joint tenancy with right of survivorship between Judith and her husband Wilbert.
- Title to the property was held by a land trust, not Wilbert personally, with the trust designating Steven Snyder (husband’s son) as ultimate beneficiary after Wilbert’s death.
- Wilbert died in December 2007; in 2008 Steven sought to evict Judith, who then learned of the land trust arrangement.
- Judith filed a two-count complaint on February 28, 2008; Count I alleged attorney malpractice, which the circuit court dismissed as time-barred by the statute of repose.
- The appellate court reversed, and the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court, concluding the injury occurred when the deed was drafted in 1997, not at Wilbert’s death, so the six-year repose applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the action under 13-214.3(d) vs (b)/(c) | Judith argues injury occurred at Wilbert’s death and (d) applies | Injury occurred at the negligent act (1997) thus (d) does not apply | Injury occurred at the act; (d) does not apply; (b)/(c) govern |
| Is the six-year statute of repose a bar here | Action timely under (d) or discovery rule | Repose began in 1997, beyond which time suit barred | Yes, the six-year repose barred the claim |
| Role of third-party beneficiary status | Judith’s status could toll or affect accrual | Not necessary to address; injury timing controls | Not decisive to result; injury timing controls the outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Wackrow v. Niemi, 231 Ill. 2d 418 (Ill. 2008) (application of 13–214.3(d) depends on death of the client)
- Petersen v. Wallach, 198 Ill. 2d 439 (Ill. 2002) (subsection (d) creates an exception to the repose period when injury does not occur until after the death of the client)
- Eastman v. Messner, 188 Ill. 2d 404 (Ill. 1999) (injury in legal malpractice requires pecuniary loss to be actionable)
- Landau, Omahana & Kopka, Ltd., 216 Ill. 2d 294 (Ill. 2005) (discovery rule tolls when plaintiff knows of injury; real damages required)