Lawyer Commentary JD Supra United States Landscaping Co. Gets Clipped: Malpractice Action Time-Barred and Fraudulent Concealment Claim Rejected

Landscaping Co. Gets Clipped: Malpractice Action Time-Barred and Fraudulent Concealment Claim Rejected

Document Cited Authorities (5) Cited in Related

Brief Summary

An Illinois appellate court held that plaintiffs' malpractice action was time-barred because plaintiffs knew, or reasonably should have known, of their wrongfully caused damages more than two years before they filed. The court also rejected plaintiffs' fraudulent concealment claim. Another division of this same court has previously (and aptly) noted: "[t]he application of a statute of limitations, especially in legal malpractice claims, can be tricky and technical, and, as this case shows, deadly to those who fail to adequately anticipate its possibility." Carlson v. Fish, 2015 IL App (1st) 140526, ¶1 (Hyman, J.).

Complete Summary

Plaintiffs, County Line and its owner (Collins), were involved in a contract dispute with Glencoe Park District (the Park). In September 2013, County Line filed a complaint against the Park for breach of contract, seeking approximately $75,000. The Park filed a counterclaim for breach of contract. During the case, County Line was represented by a number of different attorneys.

On May 29, 2014, the defendant attorney (defendant) attended a status hearing and addressed the court, although he had not filed an appearance for County Line. Defendant advised the court that he had spoken to Collins and was reviewing the file. The court continued the case to June 10, 2014, and ordered County Line to file an appearance by then. On June 10, 2014, defendant asked for another continuance and the case was continued to June 18, 2014. On June 18, 2014, defendant again appeared, but did not file an appearance, and Collins was present in court. After the status hearing on June 18, 2014, defendant raised the prospect of a settlement with the Park's counsel. The parties discussed a settlement with a one-time payment of $17,500 to County Line. The Park's counsel informed defendant the next day that the Park agreed to the settlement. Counsel e-mailed defendant a release for Collins to sign by June 24, which would enable the court to dismiss the case at the next scheduled status on June 26, 2014.

On June 24, 2014, the Park's counsel was contacted by an attorney named Joshua Slade, who informed him that Collins spoke to him about representing County Line. Slade stated that he had no knowledge of a settlement. The Park's counsel then contacted defendant, who was unaware of Collins contacting other attorneys. Defendant stated that he had sent the release to Collins by June 24, but was unable to contact him. On June 26, 2014, yet another attorney (Zohaib Ali) filed an appearance for County Line. Ali stated that he was unaware of a settlement and requested a continuance. The case was continued to July 24, 2014. On July 1, 2014, the Park filed a motion to enforce the oral settlement agreement and for sanctions. County Line filed a response, which denied that there was any settlement. County Line argued that defendant was not authorized to make settlement offers on County Line's behalf. County Line's response was supported by Collins' affidavit, wherein he acknowledged that he and defendant had discussed the possibility of a...

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex