Page 43 - Sharp-Hundley 2012
P. 43

New Developments Update




            Sharp                                                 Thinking







        No. 77                   Perspectives on Developments in the Law from The Sharp Law Firm, P.C.                 November 2012

        Failure to File Sworn Response in 28 Days Yields Binding Admission


             Another panel of the Illinois Appellate Court
        has come down on the side of putting teeth into      Special Update Issue
        Illinois  Supreme  Court Rule  216  on  requests  to      From  its  inception  Sharp  Thinking  has  aimed  to  report
        admit (see Sharp Thinking No. 39, Nov. 2010).        on developments in the law.  As that goal recognizes, the law

             In In re Application of the County Treasurer,   is not static – and no matter how thorough and perceptive an
        2012 IL App (1st) 112897, the respondent to the      analysis may be, it cannot stop further development.
        requests  to  admit  filed  a  timely  answer  thereto      Accordingly, from time to time Sharp Thinking publishes
        but  no  supporting  verification  by  the  client.   special update issues discussing new developments in areas
        “[F]ailure  to  provide  the  sworn  statement  of  a   already  covered  –  developments  which  individually  do  not
        party within the required 28 days was fatal,” the    justify  another  issue  on  the  topic,  but  of  which  we  want  to
        panel  ruled.  “The  requirements  of  Rule  216,    make  you  aware.  This  issue  provides  such  updates  on
                                                             several topics.
        particularly  providing  a  timely  sworn  response,
                                                                 If a topic is of interest and you do not have the original
        must be strictly complied with, and the failure to     issue  to  consult  for  reference,  please  check  it  out  on  our
        comply  will  result  in  a  judicial  admission  that  is   website,  www.thesharpfirm.com,  or  request  it  by  e-mailing
        considered incontrovertible, withdrawing that fact   Brenda@lotsharp.com.
        from contention.”

             The court noted that a party may receive an  extension of Rule 216’s 28-day deadline pursuant to
        Supreme Court Rule 183, if it can show “good cause” for the delay.  However, the party in Application of
        the County Treasurer had not attempted to invoke Rule 183, and simply filed a verification out-of-time.
        The Appellate Court reversed a judgment for the respondent to the requests, and ordered the trial court to
        deem the requests admitted.  It rejected an argument that the trial court’s refusal to enforce the rule was
        within its discretion as a discovery matter.

                    Officer Held Personally Liable for Violation of Citation

             A  court’s  contempt  power  may  be  used  to  impose  personal  liability  upon  a  corporate  officer  who
        causes the corporation to disobey a citation to discover assets served upon it, a federal magistrate judge
        in Chicago has held.

             Shales  v.  T.  Manning  Concrete,  Inc.,  847  F.Supp.2d  1102  (N.D.  Ill.  2012),  is  another  example  of
        courts dealing sternly with violations of such citations, a trend about which we reported in Sharp Thinking
        No. 68 (July 2012).  In Shales, the corporate president opened a new bank account into which he placed
        corporate funds and from which he dispensed them to pay corporate expenses.  Ruling that it did not have
        to find the president’s actions willful, the court said civil contempt could be based on a finding that one
        “has not been reasonably diligent and energetic in attempting to accomplish what was ordered.”

            7th Circuit Weighs in Again on Preliminary Contractual Writings

             The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has weighed in again on preliminary contractual writings


        ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
        Sharp  Thinking  is  an  occasional  newsletter  of  The  Sharp  Law  Firm,  P.C.  addressing  developments  in  the  law  which  may  be  of  interest.    Nothing  contained  in  Sharp
        Thinking  shall  be  construed  to  create  an  attorney-client  relation  where  none  previously  has  existed,  nor  with  respect  to  any  particular  matter.   The  perspectives  herein
        constitute educational material on general legal topics and are not legal advice applicable to any particular situation.  To establish an attorney-client relation or to obtain legal
        advice on your particular situation, contact a Sharp lawyer at the phone number or one of the addresses provided on page 2 of this newsletter.
   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48