Toushin v. Ruggiero
38 N.E.3d 130
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Plaintiff Steven Toushin sought a declaratory judgment that two February 16, 1994 assignments gave him a 50% beneficial interest in two Illinois land trusts holding 1349 and 1365 N. Wells St.; First Merit was trustee and Gina Ruggiero the alleged co-beneficiary.
- Plaintiff attempted to lodge the 1994 assignments with the trustee in April 2013; First Merit refused because of a dispute between the beneficiaries.
- Defendant disputed the validity of the assignments and asserted numerous defenses, including that the claim was time‑barred under the 5‑year statute in 735 ILCS 5/13‑205.
- At bench trial the circuit court found Toushin credible and entered a declaratory judgment ordering First Merit to accept the assignments; it rejected the statute‑of‑limitations defense, finding the limitation began when the trustee refused lodging in 2013.
- On appeal the First District addressed only the statute‑of‑limitations issue and reversed, holding Toushin knew or should have known of his injury well outside the five‑year period (e.g., served in a 2000 foreclosure, learned of a 2003 mortgage by defendant by 2004–2005, and discussed the matter with Angelo Ruggiero in 2006).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether declaratory relief is time‑barred under 735 ILCS 5/13‑205 | Toushin: statute starts when trustee refused to lodge assignments in 2013 | Ruggiero: statute began when Toushin knew or should have known of interference (by at least 2000–2006) | Held: claim barred; 13‑205 applies and limitation began earlier when Toushin knew or should have known of injury |
| Nature of appropriate statute of limitations | Toushin: no specific shorter rule; action is declaratory, so limitation should not have run | Ruggiero: beneficiary interest is personal property or "civil action not otherwise provided for," so 5‑year rule applies | Held: 13‑205 is appropriate because beneficial interest is personal property and injury was to those rights |
| Trigger for accrual (discovery rule vs. trustee refusal) | Toushin: accrual occurred at trustee’s refusal to accept assignment in 2013 | Ruggiero: accrual when facts authorized court relief (knowledge of mortgages, foreclosure, and threatened sale) | Held: accrual occurred when Toushin knew or should have known (by 2000–2006), not in 2013 at lodging refusal |
| Whether plaintiff’s delay should be excused by trustee’s role | Toushin: trustee’s refusal is the operative adverse act | Ruggiero: trustee is agent; dispute is between beneficial owners and plaintiff had remedies earlier | Held: trustee’s conduct is less significant; remedies between beneficiaries were available earlier so limitation ran earlier |
Key Cases Cited
- Stable Investments Partnership v. Vilsack, 775 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2015) (describing uniqueness and use of Illinois land trusts)
- Podvinec v. Popov, 168 Ill.2d 130 (1995) (trustee acts only when directed by beneficiary; trustee title has little significance outside legal title relationships)
- In re Estate of Alpert, 95 Ill.2d 377 (1983) (beneficial interest in a land trust is personal property)
- La Salle Nat’l Bank v. 53rd‑Ellis Currency Exchange, Inc., 249 Ill. App.3d 415 (1993) (enumerating powers of a land‑trust beneficiary)
- Sundance Homes, Inc. v. County of Du Page, 195 Ill.2d 257 (2001) (statutes of limitation discourage stale claims; accrual when party may invoke court aid)
- Hermitage Corp. v. Contractors Adjustment Co., 166 Ill.2d 72 (1995) (discovery rule: limitations delayed until plaintiff knows or should know of injury and wrongful cause)
- Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Bowman, 229 Ill.2d 461 (2008) (statute of limitations determined by nature of liability)