Page 6 - John Hundley 2013
P. 6

Late last month, the Supreme Court overturned the Appellate Court in Bjork.  The Supreme Court
        said the will-contest bar of § 8-1(a) was immaterial where the plaintiff’s tortious interference suit claimed
        defendant had interfered with the decedent’s plan to make a bank account pass to the plaintiff through a
        payable-on-death beneficiary designation.  Noting that neither the suit nor the plaintiff’s role in the probate
        proceedings had sought to invalidate the will, the court distinguished  Robinson, reversed the Appellate
        Court  and  sent  the  tort  suit  back  to  the  trial  court  for further  proceedings.  Bjork  v.  O’Meara,  2013  IL
        114044.

                     Fraud Not Required Under Consumer Fraud Act

             Further demonstrating fraud is not required for a claim under Illinois’ so-called Consumer Fraud Act
        (see  Sharp  Thinking  No.  19  (April  2009)),  a  panel  in  the  Appellate  Court’s  First  District  has  held  that
        misrepresentation,  omission  and  all  the  other  acts  specifically  listed  in  815  ILCS  505/2  “are  merely
        nonexclusive examples of a broad range of ‘[u]nfair or deceptive acts or practices,’ which are what section
        2 specifically prohibits.”  While the court said the plaintiff must plead “the intent element” under § 2, it said
        intent generally is not required under the “nearly 70 different ways to violate the Act” set forth in 815 ILCS
        505/2A to 815 ILCS 505/2III.  It also said that although private individuals may sue only if they have actual
        damage, the Attorney General may sue for injunctive and other relief without proof that actual damage
        has occurred.  People ex rel. Madigan v. United Constr. of Am., Inc., 2012 IL App (1st) 120308.

              Supreme Court To Review Employee Classification Act


             The Illinois Supreme Court has agreed to review whether appellate courts have correctly and properly
        reinterpreted  the  Illinois  Employee  Classification  Act  (820  ILCS  185)  so  as  to  avoid  holding  it
        unconstitutional.  See Sharp Thinking No. 77 (Nov. 2012).  After Bartlow v. Shannon, 399 Ill. App. 3d 560
        (5th Dist. 2010), initially held the act to violate due process for failing to provide appropriate notice and
        hearing rights (see also Sharp Thinking No. 38 (Oct. 2010)), the Illinois Department of Labor convinced
        another appellate court to engage in a creative construction of the act in ways so that it would  not be
        unconstitutional.  World Painting Co. v. Costigan, 2012 IL App (4th) 110869.  The 5th District then agreed
        in Bartlow v. Costigan, 2012 IL App (5th) 110519, which the Supreme Court has agreed to review.  No.
        115152  (Jan.  30,  2013).    In  addition  to  its  due  process  issues,  the  Act  is  applicable  only  to  the
        construction industry, raising equal protection and special legislation issues. See Sharp Thinking No. 11
        (Aug. 2008).

                        Promissory Fraud Claim Allowed to Proceed


             Where  the  trial  court  finds  that  a  party  promised  to  do  something  benefitting  plaintiff  but  “never
        intended to do so”, that supports a cause of action for promissory fraud, a panel in the Appellate Court’s
        First District held recently.

             Although Gagnon v. Schickel, 2012 IL App (1st) 120645, failed to include the cogent reasoning of
        federal appellate Judge Richard Posner in BPI Energy Holdings, Inc. v. IEC (Montgomery), LLC, 664 F.3d
        131 (7th Cir. 2011) (see Sharp Thinking No. 59 (March 2012)), it demonstrates that fraud sometimes can
        properly be asserted in contractual cases.

                                                                      - John T. Hundley, Jhundley@lotsharp.com, 618-242-0246

        John/SharpThinking/#84.doc
        ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
                                           THE  SHARP  LAW  FIRM,  P.C.

                1115 Harrison, P.O. Box 906, Mt. Vernon, IL 62864 • Telephone 618-242-0246 • Facsimile 618-242-1170 • www.thesharpfirm.com

           Business Transactions • Litigation • Financial Law • Problem Finances • Real Estate • Corporate • Commercial Disputes • Creditors’ Rights •
                          Arbitration • Administrative Law • Employment Matters • Estate Planning • Probate • Family Matters

          Terry Sharp: Tsharp@lotsharp.com; John T. Hundley: Jhundley@lotsharp.com; Rebecca L. Reinhardt: Rreinhardt@lotsharp.com

                                                        Advertising Material
   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11