Illinois Appellate Lawyer Blog

Howard Agins died of cancer. His estate sued his doctor for failure to evaluate, diagnose, and treat the condition. During trial, the circuit court ruled the Estate waived its right to bar certain of the doctor’s testimony under the Illinois Dead Man’s Act, which ordinarily would prohibit the doctor from testifying about conversations he had with Agins. After a jury returned a verdict in favor of the doctor, the Estate appealed the waiver rulings.

The parties fought over the standard of review. The Estate argued for de novo review because “the appeal involves application of a statute.” The doctor argued for a tougher “abuse of discretion” standard, claiming these were typical evidentiary rulings.

The First District Illinois Appellate Court ruled in favor of the doctor. The “abuse of discretion” standard applied because the “issues on appeal involve the admissibility of conversations between decedent [Agins] and [Defendant] Dr. Schonberg and do not involve statutory construction.”

A construction contractor sued a homeowner for labor and materials used in remodeling work. The homeowner defended by claiming the contractor did not comply with the Illinois Home Repair and Remodeling Act: there was not a signed contract; the contractor did not give the homeowner the required consumer-rights brochure. Those facts were not disputed.

The contractor won a bench trial. The substantive question on appeal was whether the contractor substantially complied with the Act. The Fourth District Illinois Appellate Court used a de novo standard of review. Because the facts were not disputed, the court had to decide only whether the contractor’s actions amounted to substantial compliance with the Act. And “[w]hether there is substantial compliance with a statutory provision is a question of law, and our standard of review is de novo.

The appellate court ultimately ruled that the contractor did substantially comply with the Act. Read the whole case, Behl v. Gingerich, No. 4-08-0974 (12/21/09), by clicking here.

Back from the DL. Let’s catch up.

Answering a question of first impression, the Illinois Supreme Court established the standard of review “on the question of whether a provision in a trust document or will is void as a matter of public policy.” The court ruled that a de novo standard applied.

“It is clear, however, that such findings are subject to de novo review, because public policy is necessarily a question of law … This conclusion is consistent with the well-established principle that whether a provision in a contract, insurance policy, or other agreement is invalid because it violates public policy is a question of law, which we review de novo.”

Rosa Neal was guardian of a disabled person’s estate. On behalf of her ward, Rosa contracted to sell the ward’s home to Damon Perry. Damon asked for, and received, approval from the probate court of the contract for sale of the property.

The contract had a mortgage contingency clause. Damon asked for a 30-day extension a day before the contingency was set to expire. The estate refused Damon’s request. Damon then said he would waive the contingency and that he intended to purchase the house as planned. But the estate had received a better offer, so its attorney told Damon that his inability to get a mortgage commitment by the contingency deadline rendered the contract null and void.

Damon then asked the probate court to enforce his contract to purchase the house. But the probate court agreed with the estate, and ruled “that the contract was null and void due to the mortgage contingency provision, and, moreover, because of equitable considerations the contract was not in the best interests of the estate.”

Clara George Minch and Ronald George were divorced in 1982. In 2003, Clara learned that Ronald had sold his interest in a company that owned Florida real estate for more than $950,000. She sued George for fraud, asserting that during the divorce proceedings he misrepresented his interest in the stock.

After Clara presented her case, the trial court directed a verdict for George.

The trial court ruled that Clara did not prove fraud and thus failed to meet her burden of proof.