Snyder v. Heidelberger

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 2nd District Appellate » 2010 » Snyder v. Heidelberger

State: Illinois

Court: 2nd District Appellate

Docket No: 2-08-1061 Rel

Case Date: 08/12/2010

Preview:No. 2-08-1061 Filed: 8-12-10 ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ JUDITH J. SNYDER, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Du Page County. Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 08--CH--802 ) ELLIOT HEIDELBERGER, ) ) Defendant-Appellee. ) Honorable ) Kenneth L. Popejoy, (Steven W. Snyder, Defendant). ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE McLAREN delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff, Judith J. Snyder, sued defendant attorney Elliot Heidelberger for malpractice in the drafting of a deed to real property that her late husband, Wilbert Snyder, allegedly intended to convey to her as his joint tenant. She also requested a constructive trust in order to prevent defendant Steven W. Snyder from dispossessing her via an action for forcible entry and detainer (735 ILCS 5/9--101 et seq. (West 2008)). Heidelberger moved to dismiss the malpractice count (see 735 ILCS 5/2--619 (West 2008)) on several bases, including as barred by the statute of repose (735 ILCS 5/13--214.3 (West 1994)). The trial court granted Heidelberger's motion, based solely on the claimed violation of the statute of repose. Plaintiff appeals (see 210 Ill. 2d R. 304(a)). We reverse and remand. Plaintiff's two-count complaint, filed February 28, 2008, alleged the following facts. Plaintiff married Wilbert Snyder (Wilbert) on March 7, 1997. Since then, she had resided continuously at the

No. 2--08--1061 property at issue (the premises). On May 23, 1997, Wilbert retained Heidelberger to change either the legal title to, or the beneficial interest in, the premises. Wilbert, Heidelberger, and plaintiff intended to make Wilbert and plaintiff co-owners in joint tenancy with rights of survivorship. On May 23, 1997, Heidelberger prepared a quitclaim deed that, by its terms, conveyed title to the premises from Wilbert to Wilbert and plaintiff in joint tenancy. The next month, Heidelberger recorded the deed. Although the complaint did not so state, plaintiff later alleged that Heidelberger negligently failed to recognize that Wilbert did not hold title to the premises but merely held the beneficial interest in a land trust that did. Thus, she alleged, the quitclaim deed conveyed nothing to her. The complaint continued as follows. On December 26, 2007, Wilbert died. On February 19, 2008, Steven W. Snyder (Steven), Wilbert's son and plaintiff's stepson, filed a forcible entry and detainer action against plaintiff. Plaintiff's complaint does not explain Steven's suit. However, a judgment of January 2, 2009,1 granting Steven relief stated as follows. The quitclaim deed did nothing because title to the premises always had been, and still was, in the land trust. Thus, plaintiff never acquired any interest in the premises. On June 26, 1980, Wilbert amended the land trust agreement to provide that, when he died, the entire beneficial interest would go to Steven. Therefore, Steven was now entitled to possession of the premises. Count I of plaintiff's complaint, against Heidelberger for malpractice, alleged that plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the professional relationship between Heidelberger and Wilbert and that Heidelberger breached his duty

1

The judgment was entered after the trial court consolidated plaintiff's action with

Steven's action. -2-

No. 2--08--1061 of due care to plaintiff. Count II sought to impose a constructive trust on the premises, contending that Steven should not be unjustly enriched by Heidelberger's negligence. Heidelberger moved to dismiss count I on several bases, including the statute of repose, which, in pertinent part, reads: "(b) An action for damages based on tort, contract, or otherwise *** against an attorney arising out of an act or omission in the performance of professional services *** must be commenced within 2 years from the time the person bringing the action knew or reasonably should have known of the injury for which damages are sought. (c) Except as provided in subsection (d), an action described in subsection (b) may not be commenced in any event more than 6 years after the date on which the act or omission occurred. (d) When the injury caused by the act or omission does not occur until the death of the person for whom the professional services were rendered, the action may be commenced within 2 years after the date of the person's death ***." 735 ILCS 5/13--214.3 (West 1994).2 Heidelberger reasoned that, because the allegedly negligent act or omission occurred on May 23, 1997, subsection (b) of the statute barred any action filed after May 23, 2003. In response, plaintiff relied on subsection (d)'s exception to the six-year rule. She contended that her injury occurred only after Wilbert died, which was less than two years before she filed her

2

Although the statute was amended in 1995 by Public Act 89--7 (Pub. Act 89--7,

Download Snyder v. Heidelberger.pdf