The Forest Preserve District Of Cook County v. Continental Community Bank And Trust Company
2017 IL App (1st) 170680
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- The Forest Preserve District sought to condemn 12.5 acres held in trust for Jack Rivo; Rivo entered an agreed judgment in 2003 receiving $1.4M (with $50,000 escrowed).
- After other property owners successfully challenged the District’s ordinance, Rivo filed a 2-1401 petition (2003) to vacate the 2003 agreed judgment; Greg Bedell represented Rivo under a 20% contingency retainer (with $1,200 retainer) and served an attorney’s lien notice in 2009.
- The circuit court granted Rivo’s 2-1401 petition (2012), reinstated the condemnation action, and later entered final summary judgment for Rivo on the condemnation complaint (2013), affirmed on appeal.
- Bedell withdrew in 2012; he later sought fees under §70(a) of the Eminent Domain Act, primarily requesting 20% of the property value ($280,000) plus costs; the circuit court awarded $280,000 and costs (2015).
- Parties settled Rivo’s counterclaims in 2017 for $1.65M (subject to escrow application to Bedell’s judgment); the District sought to interplead and invalidate Bedell’s lien; the court denied the District’s interpleader and refused to declare the lien invalid.
- On appeal the appellate court affirmed authority to award fees under §70(a) but vacated the fee amount and remanded to calculate reasonable fees under quantum meruit because the contingency contract had terminated when Bedell withdrew.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §70(a) authorizes attorney-fee awards for work performed in a 2-1401 proceeding related to condemnation | District: §70(a) applies only to fees incurred in the condemnation proceeding itself, not in separate 2-1401 actions | Bedell/Rivo: 2-1401 was compelled defense of the condemnation; §70(a) covers reasonable fees incurred in that defense | Held: §70(a) authorizes fees for reasonable attorney work incurred in compelled proceedings (including 2-1401) that defend the condemnation complaint |
| Whether Bedell could be paid under his original contingency agreement after withdrawing | District: Contingency cannot be enforced after attorney withdrawal; no contract to enforce | Bedell: Contract entitles him to 20% of recovery; he recovered title via 2-1401 so fee triggered | Held: Contingency agreement terminated upon Bedell’s withdrawal; court abused discretion awarding fees solely on that contract |
| Proper measure of fees (contract vs. quantum meruit) | District: If recovery not via enforceable contingency, fees should be reduced or denied | Bedell: Alternatively sought hourly fees; primary claim was contractual contingency | Held: Fees should be awarded under quantum meruit; remanded for recalculation of reasonable fees (court should consider time, skill, retainer paid, settlement terms/escrow) |
| Validity/enforceability of Bedell’s attorney’s lien and District’s interpleader claim | District: Lien invalid as not enforceable against public body and improper service; interpleader appropriate | Bedell: Lien attaches to settlement as contingency/right to portion | Held: Lien-related rulings rendered moot because contingency contract unenforceable; appellate court declined to decide lien/interpleader issues after remand on quantum meruit |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Public Works & Buildings v. Lanter, 15 Ill. 2d 33 (Ill. 1958) (§70(a) fees include appellate or other necessary proceedings integral to defense of condemnation)
- Village of Cary v. Trout Valley Ass'n, 297 Ill. App. 3d 63 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (defendant compelled to pursue appeal/proceeding to protect property may recover fees under condemnation-fee statute)
- McGill v. Garza, 378 Ill. App. 3d 73 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007) (contingent-fee contract is not enforceable after attorney-client relationship terminates; recovery shifts to quantum meruit)
- Kannewurf v. Johns, 260 Ill. App. 3d 66 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994) (when contingency agreement terminates, attorney may recover on quantum meruit; factors for fee calculation listed)
- Leoris & Cohen, P.C. v. McNiece, 226 Ill. App. 3d 591 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) (same)