Shortened ‘Arb Award’ Rejection Deadline Upheld Against Constitutional Attack – IL Appeals Court

The First District appeals court recently nixed a plaintiff’s constitutional challenge to a local rule’s arbitration rejection deadline.  The opinion’s upshot is clear: when a supreme court rule conflicts with a statute, the rule wins.

The plaintiff in McBreen v. Mercedes-Benz, USA, LLC  argued her equal protection and due process rights were violated when a trial court denied her attempt to tardily reject an arbitration award. The case was decided by a single arbitrator under the auspices of the Cook County Law Division Mandatory Arbitration Program (MAP), a two-year pilot program that sends commercial cases with damage claims between $50,000 and $75,00 to mandatory arbitration.

Among other things, the Law Division MAP provides for hearings before a single arbitrator and requires a losing party to reject the award within seven business days. Cook County Cir. Ct. R. 25.1, 25.5, 25.11.

After an arbitrator found for defendants, the plaintiff didn’t reject the award until 30 days later – 23 days too late. The trial court then granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s case and denied plaintiff’s motion to void the arbitration award or extend the rejection deadline.  The trial court entered judgment on the arbitration award for defendant.

Plaintiff argued on appeal that Rule 25’s compressed rejection period violated her constitutional rights since it conflicted with the  30-day rejection deadline for Municipal Department arbitrations. (The Cook County Municipal Department hears personal injury cases and breach of contract suits where the damage claim is $30,000 or less.)   The plaintiff also claimed the Law Division MAP was unconstitutional since it clashed with the “panel of three” arbitrators rule prevailing in Municipal Department arbitrations.

Affirming the trial court, the Court first considered whether the Illinois Supreme Court had power to establish the Law Division MAP program with its seven-day rejection rule.

The Law Division MAP rejection period conflicts with Cook County’s Municipal Department arbitration scheme – which has a 30-day rejection rule.  (The Municipal arbitration rules, codified in Supreme Court Rules 86-95, were legislatively implemented via Code Sections 2-1001A and 1003A which, respectively, authorize the establishment of an arbitration program where a panel of three arbitrators hears cases involving less than $50,000 in damages. Rule 93(a) contains the 30-day rejection cut-off.)

The First District noted that while the Law Division MAP’s seven-day rejection period clashes with the Municipal Department’s 30-day period, Illinois courts through the decades consistently recognize the Illinois Supreme Court’s constitutional authority to make rules governing practice and procedure in the lower courts and that where a supreme court rule conflicts with a statute on a judicial procedure matter, the rule wins.

The court also notes the Illinois legislature echoed this inherent power for the Supreme Court to establish court rules in Code Section 1-104(a).  In the end, the Court found that In view of the Illinois Supreme Court’s expansive power in the area of pleadings, practice and procedure, the Law Division MAP’s abbreviated rejection period trumped any conflicting, longer rejection period found in other statutes or rules.  (¶¶ 17-18, 22-23).

The Court also rejected plaintiff’s equal protection argument – that the Law Division MAP program infringed the rights of Municipal court participants by shortening the rejection time span from 30 to seven days.  While allowing that Law Division and Municipal litigants in the arbitration setting share the same objective of taking part in a less-costly alternative to litigation, the Court found the two Programs “qualitatively different:” the Law Division MAP is geared to those seeking damages of between $50,000 and $75,000 while the Municipal plaintiff’s damages are capped at $30,000.

According to the Court, the different damage ceilings involved in Law Division and Municipal cases meant that plaintiffs in the two court systems aren’t similarly situated under the Equal Protection clause. (¶¶ 34-35).

Plaintiff’s final argument, that the Law Division MAP’s seven-day rejection period violated her due process rights also failed.  Due process requires an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful matter.

The plaintiff argued that the Law Division MAP’s seven-day rejection cut-off failed to give her a meaningful opportunity to challenge the award.   The Court thought otherwise.  It noted that statutes are presumed constitutional and someone challenging a statute’s constitutionality bears a heavy burden.  It then cited to multiple cases across a wide strata of facts which have upheld time limits of less than 30 days.

Afterwords:

McBreen offers a thorough, triangulated analysis of what happens when a Supreme Court Rule, a county’s local court rule and legislative enactments all speak to the same issue and appear to contradict each other.  The case solidifies the proposition that the Supreme Court’s primacy in the realm of lower court procedure and pleading extends to mandatory arbitration regimes, too.  While the case is silent on what constitutes a sufficient basis to extend the Law Division MAP’s seven-day rejection deadline, McBreen makes clear that a constitutional challenge will likely ring hollow.

 

Appeals Court Gives Teeth to “Good Faith” Requirement of Accord and Satisfaction Defense

A common cautionary tale recounted in 1L contracts classes involves the crafty debtor who secretly short-pays a creditor but notes “payment in full” on his check. According to the classic “gotcha” vignette, the debtor’s devious conduct forever bars the unwitting creditor from suing the debtor.

Whether apocryphal or not (like the one about the newly minted lawyer who accidentally brought a marijuana cigarette into the courthouse and forever lost his license after less than 3 hours of practice) the fact pattern neatly illustrates the accord and satisfaction rue. Accord and satisfaction applies where a creditor and debtor have a legitimate dispute over amounts owed on a note (or other payment document) and the parties agree on an amount (the “accord”) the debtor can pay (the “satisfaction”) to resolve the disputed claim.

Piney Ridge Associates v. Ellington, 2017 IL App (3d) 160764-U reads like a first year contracts “hypo” come to life as it reflects the perils of creditor’s accepting partial payments where the payor recites “payment in full” on a check.

Piney Ridge’s plaintiff note buyer sued the defendant for defaulting on a 1993 promissory note. The defendant moved to dismiss because he wrote “payment in full” under the check endorsement line. The trial court agreed with the defendant that plaintiff’s acceptance of the check was an accord and satisfaction that defeated plaintiff’s suit.

The 3rd District appeals court reversed; it stressed that a debtor’s duplicitous conduct won’t support an accord and satisfaction defense.

Under Illinois law, an accord and satisfaction is a contractual method of discharging a debt: the accord is the parties’ agreement; the satisfaction is the execution of the agreement.

In deciding whether a transaction amounts to an accord and satisfaction, the court focuses on the parties’ intent.

Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code (which applies to negotiable instruments) a debtor who relies on the accord and satisfaction defense must prove (1) he/she tendered payment in good faith as full satisfaction of a claim, (2) the amount of the claim was unliquidated or subject to a bona fide dispute; and (3) the claimant obtained payment from the debtor. 810 ILCS 5/3-311(a).

Good faith means honesty in fact and observing “reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.” The debtor must also provide the creditor with a conspicuous statement that the debtor’s payment is tendered in full satisfaction of a claim. (⁋12)(810 ILCS 5/3-311(a), (b)). Without an honest dispute, there is no accord and satisfaction. (⁋ 14)

A debtor who fails to act in good faith cannot bind a creditor to an accord and satisfaction. Case examples of a court refusing to find an accord and satisfaction include defendants who, despite clearly marking their payment as “in full”, paid less than 10% of a workers’ compensation lien in one case, and in another, paid less than half the plaintiff’s total invoice amount and lied to the plaintiff’s agent about past payments. (⁋⁋ 13, 14)(citing to Fremarek v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 272 Ill.App.3d 1067 (1995); and McMahon Food Corp. v. Burger Dairy Co., 103 F.3d 1307 (7th Cir. 1996).

Applying this good faith requirement, the Court noted that the defendant paid $354 to the plaintiff at the time the defendant admittedly owed over $10,000 (defendant sent a pre-suit letter to the prior noteholder conceding he owed $10,000 on the note). The Court held that this approximately $7,600 shortfall clearly did not meet accord and satisfaction’s good faith component.

Bullet-points:

  • Accord and satisfaction requires good faith on the payor’s part and a court won’t validate debtor subterfuge.
  • Where the amount paid “in full” is dwarfed by the uncontested claim amount, the Court won’t find an accord and satisfaction.
  • Where there is no legitimate dispute concerning a debt’s existence and amount, there can be no accord and satisfaction.

 

 

No Automatic Finality Where Pleading Never Amended After ‘Without Prejudice’ Dismissal – IL Court

Richter v. Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc.’s, (2016 IL 119518) essential holding is that a prior dismissal without prejudice doesn’t convert to a final order for res judicata or appeal purposes where a plaintiff fails to amend the dismissed pleading within the time deadline set by the court and the movant defendant doesn’t seek a dismissal with prejudice.

Claiming their membership in an agriculture cooperative was unfairly terminated, the Richter plaintiffs sued the defendant co-op for statutory shareholder remedies under the Illinois Business Corporation Act, 805 ILCS 5/12.56 (BCA), and common law fraud. Plaintiffs’ key theory was that defendant prematurely and pretextually terminated a milk marketing agreement by invoking an obscure bylaws provision in the agreement.

The trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ fraud claims without prejudice and gave them 30 days to amend their complaint – a deadline ultimately increased to 120 days. Plaintiffs never amended their fraud claims though, instead choosing to pursue the BCA claim. After nearly five years of litigation, the plaintiff sought the voluntary dismissal of the BCA claim and later refiled another action within the one-year window allowed by 735 ILCS 5/2-1009.

The trial court granted the defendant’s 2-619 motion to dismiss the refiled suit under res judicata principles. It found the plaintiffs’ failure to amend the fraud claims “finalized” the prior dismissal without prejudice order and barred plaintiffs’ refiled suit.  The Fourth District reversed.  It held the trial court’s dismissal without prejudice was not final on its face and could never support a res judicata finding. Defendant appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Affirming the appeals court, the Supreme Court dove deep into the earmarks of a final judgment for appeal and res judicata purposes and examined when an involuntary dismissal precludes the later refiling of a lawsuit.

Res judicata requires a final judgment on the merits for the doctrine to preclude a second lawsuit between two parties for the same cause of action. The doctrine bars not only what was actually decided in a prior action, but also matters that could have been litigated and decided in that action.

A “final” judgment or order denotes one that terminates the litigation and absolutely fixes the parties’ rights so that all that’s left is enforcing the judgment. (⁋24)
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 273 provides that an involuntary dismissal – other than one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join an indispensable party – is considered an adjudication on the merits.

A dismissal “without prejudice” signals there was no final decision on the merits. A dismissal that grants a plaintiff leave to amend its pleading is not final because the dismissal does not terminate the litigation. (⁋25). In such a case, a plaintiff is not barred from refiling an action. s

The Illinois Supreme Court declined the defendant’s invitation to create an “automatic final judgment ” rule when a plaintiff fails to amend within court-imposed time limits. Instead, the Court placed the onus on the litigants to convert a non-final dismissal order into a final one by seeking a dismissal with prejudice once the time for amendments has lapsed. And since the defendant had the burden of showing that res judicata applied and failed to obtain a definite with prejudice dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, the plaintiff was not prevented from refiling their lawsuit.

But What About Rein and Hudson?

Rein v. David A. Noyes & Co., 172 Ill.2d 325, 334–35 (1996) and Hudson v. City of Chicago, 228 Ill.2d 462, 467 (2008) are oft-cited case law poster children for the perils of refiling previously (voluntarily) dismissed claims when other claims in the same suit were involuntarily dismissed. In such a case, a plaintiff’s refiled action can be barred by res judicata since the voluntarily dismissed claims could have been litigated in the earlier suit.  But here, unlike in Rein and Hudson, no part of plaintiff’s suit was dismissed with prejudice. And since a nonfinal order can never bar a subsequent action, res judicata didn’t apply.

Implication

When faced with a dismissal without prejudice, a plaintiff should quickly seek leave to amend or seek a dismissal with prejudice to start the notice of appeal clock. For its part, a defendant should seek with- prejudice dismissal language where a plaintiff fails to amend within time limits allowed by the court. Doing so will put the defendant in a good position to file a dismissal motion predicated on res judicata or claim-splitting if the plaintiff later refiles against the same defendant.