Tag: davis mcgrath llc

Facebook Posts Not Hearsay Where Offered To Show How Ex-Wife Presented Relationship To Others – Illinois Case Note

FullSizeRender

Reversing a family law judge’s decision to terminate ex-spousal maintenance, the Second District appeals court in In re Marriage of Miller, 2015 IL App(2d) 140530 delves into the foundation requirements for getting Facebook pages into evidence and again highlights the crucial role social media plays in litigation in this digitally saturated culture.

The trial court granted the ex-husband (“Husband”) motion to terminate maintenance payments to his ex-wife (“Wife”) based on her multiple Facebook posts that she was in a relationship and (presumably) living with another man.  Illinois divorce law posits that maintenance payments must cease when the recipient remarries or cohabitates with another on a continuing basis.

Since the Facebook posts revealed the Wife frequently trumpeting her new relationship, the court found that the policies behind maintenance payments would be compromised by allowing the Wife to continue receiving payments from Husband.

The Wife appealed, arguing that the trial court shouldn’t have allowed her Facebook posts into evidence.

Held: Reversed (but on other grounds).  Wife’s social media posts were properly authenticated, not hearsay and any prejudice to her didn’t substantially outweigh the posts’ probative value.

Rules/reasoning:

– To enter a document into evidence at trial or on summary judgment, the offering party must lay a foundation for it;

– The party offering the document into evidence – including a document to impeach (contradict) a witness on the stand – must authenticate the document through the testimony of a witness who has personal knowledge sufficient to satisfy the court that the document is what the proponent claim it is;

– To lay a foundation for an out-of-court statement (including a document), the party attempting to get the statement into evidence must direct the witness to the time, place, circumstances and substance of the statement;

– Hearsay is a statement, other than made by the declarant while testifying at trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted;

– When the making of statement is the significant fact, hearsay isn’t involved (ex: the mere fact that a conversation took place isn’t hearsay);

Here, the court found that the Facebook posts weren’t offered for their truth.  Instead, they were offered to illustrate the way the Wife was portraying her current relationship to others.  The court deemed the posts relevant to the issue of how “public” or “out in the open” the Wife was about the relationship. 

And since the Husband didn’t offer the posts for the truth of their contents (that Wife was in fact living with someone and so disqualified from further maintenance payments) but instead to show the court the manner in which the Wife presented the relationship to others, the court properly allowed the posts into evidence.

The Second District also agreed with the trial court that the posts didn’t unfairly prejudice the Wife.  Indeed, the court characterized the posts as “bland”, “cumulative” and less effective than the parties’ live testimony.

(¶¶ 33-38)

The Wife still won though as the appeals court reversed the trial court’s decision to terminate Husband’s maintenance obligations.  The court found that more evidence was needed on the specifics of the Wife’s existing relationship including whether it was continuing and conjugal enough to constitute a “de facto marriage” (as opposed to a “dating” relationship only) and thus exclude the Wife from further maintenance payments from Husband.

Take-aways:

Hearsay doesn’t apply where out-of-court statement has independent legal significance;

Facebook posts authored by a party to lawsuit will likely get into evidence unless their prejudice outweighs their probative value;

Where social media posts are authored by third parties, it injects another layer of hearsay into the evidence equation and makes it harder to get the posts admitted at trial.

Contractor’s Legal Malpractice Suit Can Go Forward In Case of (Alleged) Misfiled Mechanics’ Lien: IL 1st Dist.

Construction Systems, Inc. v. FagelHaber LLC, 2015 IL App (1st) 141700, dramatically illustrates the perilous consequences that can flow from a construction contract’s failure to identify the contracting parties and shows the importance of clarity when drafting releases intended to protect parties from future liability.

The plaintiff contractor sued its former law firm (the Firm) for failing to properly perfect a mechanics lien against a mortgage lender on commercial property.  The plaintiff alleged that because of the Firm’s lien perfection failure, the plaintiff was forced to settled its claim for about $1.3M less than the lien’s worth (about $3M). 

In the underlying lien case, the plaintiff and defendant Firm got into a fee dispute and the Firm withdrew.  The Firm turned over its file to the plaintiff after the plaintiff made a partial payment of the outstanding fees (owed to defendant Firm) and signed a release (the “Release”). The Release, which referenced “known and unknown” claims and contained “without limitation” verbiage, was signed by the plaintiff in 2004.  Plaintiff filed the current malpractice suit in 2009.

The trial court entered summary judgment for the Firm on the basis that the Release immunized the Firm from future claims.  Plaintiff appealed.

Held: Reversed

Rules/Reasons:

Reversing summary judgment for the Firm, the First District first applied the relevant rules governing written releases in Illinois.

– a release is a contract and is governed by contract law;

– a release will be enforced as written where it’s clearly worded

– the scope and effect of a release is controlled by the intention of the parties;

– the intention of the parties is divined by reference to the words of the release and a release won’t be construed to defeat a claim that was not contemplated by the parties when they signed it;

– A “general” release will not apply to specific claims where a party is unaware of other (specific) claims;

– Where one party to a release owes the other a fiduciary duty (e.g. lawyer-client), the party owing the fiduciary duty has the burden of showing that it disclosed all relevant information to the other party.

(¶¶ 25-28).

Here, the court gave the Release a cramped construction.  It held that it didn’t apply to the malpractice suit since that case wasn’t filed until 5 years after the Release was signed and there was no evidence that the plaintiff knew that the Firm possibly flubbed the lien filing when it (the plaintiff) signed the Release.  This lack of evidence on the parties’ intent raised a disputed fact question that required denial of summary judgment.

Next, the court turned to the Firm’s judicial estoppel argument – that the plaintiff couldn’t sue for malpractice since it obtained a benefit in the underlying lawsuit (a settlement payment of $1.8M from the competing lender) by claiming it was an original contractor and not a subcontractor.  Judicial estoppel applies where (1) a party takes two positions under oath, (2) in separate legal proceedings, (3) the party successfully maintained the first position and obtained a benefit from it; and (4) the two positions are inconsistent.  (¶ 37).

The issue was paramount to the underlying lien case because if the plaintiff was a subcontractor, it had to comply with the 90-day notice requirement of Section 24 of the Lien Act.  But if it was a general or original contractor, plaintiff was excused from the 90-day notice requirement.  Based on this factual uncertainty, the court found the plaintiff had a right to pursue alternative arguments to salvage something of its approximately $3M lien claim.

The court also agreed with the plaintiff that it could recover prejudgment interest on the legal malpractice claim.  Since that claim flowed from the underlying allegation that the Firm failed to perfect plaintiff’s lien, and since Section 21 of the Illinois Mechanics Lien Act allows for prejudgment interest (770 ILCS 60/21), the plaintiff could add the interest it would have recovered to the damage claim versus the Firm. (¶ 48).

Afterwords:

1/ A broad release can still be narrowly interpreted to encompass only those claims that were likely in the release parties’ contemplation.  If a claim hadn’t come to fruition at the time a release is signed, the releasing party can argue that an expansive release doesn’t cover that inchoate claim;

2/ Judicial estoppel requires more than alternative pleadings or arguments.  Instead, the litigant must take two wholly contradictory statements and obtain a benefit from doing so.  What’s a “benefit” is open to interpretation.  Here, the plaintiff received $1.8M on its lien claim in the earlier litigation.  Still, this wasn’t a benefit in relation to the value of its lien – which exceeded $3M;

3/ If the underlying claim – be it common law or statutory – provides for pre-judgment interest, then the later malpractice suit stemming from that underlying claim can include pre-judgment interest in the damages calculation.

 

 

Release and Satisfaction of Judgment and Guaranty Liability – IL Law

ReleaseBrahos v. Chickerneo,  2014 IL App (2d) 130543-U, examines Illinois money damages rules, the extent of a guarantor’s liability and satisfaction-of-judgment requirements against the backdrop of a business dispute involving a failed car dealership.

The plaintiff got a multi-million dollar fraud judgment against multiple defendants that stemmed from a failed car dealership business venture.  In post-judgment proceedings, the dealership was sold and the sale proceeds satisfied plaintiff’s judgment against all defendants except for one.  That remaining defendant then moved to dismiss the citation proceedings and for satisfaction of the remaining judgment balance – about $600K.  The trial court agreed and ordered the judgment satisfied.  The plaintiff appealed.

Held: Reversed.  The $600,000 still owed the plaintiff on the money judgment was not satisfied by the bank releasing the investor guarantors from liability under the various dealership loans.

Rules/Reasoning:

Reversing the trial court and finding that the plaintiff still could purse defendant for the balance of the money judgment, the Court applied several salient guaranty and release/satisfaction-of-judgment rules:

– Generally, the discharge of the principal obligation discharges the guarantor’s obligation;

– Code Section 12-183 (735 ILCS 5/12-183) requires a judgment creditor to sign a release and satisfaction of judgment so that the debtor can record that release with the Court that entered the judgment

– the party seeking the release of a judgment bears the burden of proving that a judgment entered against him was released;

– a release is a contract and is governed by contract law;

– the contracting parties intention is determined by the plain language of the contract;

– it is only where a contract is ambiguous (reasonably susceptible to two opposing meanings) that evidence is allowed in to explain what the contracting parties intended;

– typically, a money judgment can only be satisfied by paying the judgment unless the parties agree otherwise.

(¶¶ 32-35).

The Second District sided with the plaintiff and found that his money judgment shouldn’t have been deemed satisfied by the trial court.  The plaintiff never agreed to release his money judgment against the defendant and there was no evidence that plaintiff agreed to accept a “noncash benefit”- namely, the release from his guarantor liability to the bank.

The Court also pointed to the promissory note that required defendant to pay the judgment’s remaining $600K to the plaintiff.  The bank’s release of the dealership investors from their loan and guaranty liabilities didn’t  affect the defendant’s note liability.

In addition, the dealership lender’s release of the various investors (including plaintiff) from their bank obligations didn’t mention plaintiff’s damage award against the remaining defendant. (¶ 35).

The defendant’s double recovery argument – that the plaintiff got a windfall having his guaranty liability to the bank released while getting paid $600K from the defendant – was also rejected. 

The Court found there was no double recovery because plaintiff was not getting paid twice for the same injury and the bank was not a “joint tortfeasor” with the defendant.  Instead, the bank was a third-party creditor. ¶ 37.

Take-aways: 

–  A release of judgment will be construed as written and not expanded beyond its clear terms;

– A creditor isn’t required to release a money judgment unless that creditor is paid or the parties agree otherwise.