FIRST DIS TRICT FOURTH DIVISION January 13, 2011

No. 1-10- 0151 AFR OUZ KHEIRK

HAHVA SH, Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t,
v. REZA BA NIA SSA DI, Defe ndan t-Appell ee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appe al fro m the Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Coo k C oun

ty No. 09 L 9943 Ho no r ab le Ronald S. Davis , Judge Presidin

g.

Pr esiding J ust ice Ga llagher deliver ed t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Jus t ices La vin and P ucinsk i conc ur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. OPINI ON Plai ntif f-appel la nt, Af rouz Khei rkhahv ash, f il ed a compl

ai nt agai nst def endan t-appellee Re za Ba ni as sadi , al l eg i ng l eg al mal pra cti cean d f rau d b as ed on B an i as sadi ’s repres en tati on of K h ei rk h ah v ash i n i m m i gr ati on pr oce ed i n gs . B an i as sa di f i l ed a m oti on to dism i ss pu rsua n t to section 2-619(a)(5) of the Illi nois Code of Ci

vi l Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(5) (Wes t 200 8) ) o n t he gr ou nds t hat t he co mplaint w as t ime barr ed u nder sec t ion 1 3- 214 .3 of t he Cod e ( 73 5 I LC S 5 /1 3- 21 4.3 (b ), ( c) (West 20 08 )). The c i rc ui t cou rt gra n ted th e m oti on to dis mi ss wi th prejudi ce and den

ie d Bani assadi ’s request f

or at to rney

fees and san ctions. On appeal , Khei

rkhahv ash contends

that t he ci

rcuit court err ed i

n di sm is si ng the com

pla in t as timebarred where a fact ual dispute exists as t o when Kheirkhahvash discovered Baniassadi’s1-10-0151

2

ne gli gen ce, the negl

i gen ce a l l eged wasconti

nuous and K he i rkhah va sh i ncurred i ncreas i ngl y sev ere i nj uri es, a nd a l anguag e b arrier prevented the ti mel y di scovery

of the i nj ury and dam ages . K he i rkh ah vash f urth er c onte nds th at B an i as sadi ’s ac ts of f rau dul en t con ce al men t ba r hi m f rom ra ising a st at ut e o f li

mitat ions d efense . Fo r t he fo llowing r eas ons , w e affirm the judg ment o f the ci rc ui t cou rt. BACK GROUND K he i rkh ah vash wa s b orn i n I ran . Sh e c am e to the U ni ted State s on a v i si tor’ s v i sa on August 3, 1 999. Her vi sa was set t o expire in February 2000. Khei

rkhahvash

was fl uent in Farsi and could not r ead, speak o r write Englis h. She retained Baniassadi, whose fi rst language is also Fa rs i , i n Ja n ua ry or F eb ru ar y of 20 00 . B an

i as sa di ob tai n ed an ex tensi on of h er v i si tor’ s v i sa to Jul y 2000. K

hei rkhahv ash al so sought Bani assadi ’s adv ic e on the i ssue of rem

ai ni ng i n the Un ited Stat es perm

anen tly . Accordin

g to Khei rkhahv ash, sh e told hi m that sh e had com

e to t he Un

ited St at es be ca us e s he wa s a fr aid o f he rab us ive hu sba nd an d t ha t she als o wa nt ed Ba nia ss ad i’s he lp i n ob tai ni ng a di vor ce . Ba ni as sadi tol d her th

at f ea r of he r h usba nd wa s n ot a suf f i ci en t rea son f or he r to ob tai n asy l um an d that s he sh oul d s eek a sy

l um on p ol i ti cal grou nds, b as ed

on a f ea r of pe r se cu t io n by t he I r an ian go ve rnme nt . He as ke d a bo ut he rpo lit ica l invo lve men t an d s he t o ld hi m s he h ad nev er been in volv ed i n poli tics. He told he

r he would prepare a s

tatement that he had used successful

ly with other clien

ts. Bani assadi prepared an asy

lum applic ation that contain

ed Kh ei rkhahv ash’ s personal i nf orma tion . In the se cti on of

the a ppl i cation tha

t aske d f or the i nf orma tion regar di ng th e nature of t he as ylum claim

, he included a r efer ence t o a n at t ache d exhibit . Khe irkha hvash signe d t he1-10-0151

1 The re co rd and br iefs co nt ain many spelling variat ions fo r t he name o f this o rg anizat ion, e.g. , Mujah

edi n-e Kh al q, Muhaj adeen-el

-Kal q, Mujah edeen-e-K

hal q, etc. 3 appl i cation i tself (wi thout the e

xh i bi t) on Fe bruary 16, 200 0. In

Jun e 200 0, sh

e si gne d two more documen ts, an atto rney

appearance f

orm and an

ot her docume

nt contain in g biographica

l i nf orma tion
. On A ugust 1, 2000, Banias sadi fi le d Khei rkhahv ash’ s asy lum applic ation. A v

erif ie d personal stat emen

t was at tached t o t he appli cation. Accor din

g to the stat emen

t, Khei rkhahvash becam e a supporter o f M ojahedi n K hal eq 1 (ME K) w hen she was in high scho ol. It st at ed t hat she
wa s p ut o n p r o ba t io n by he rsc ho o l’s I sla mic c o mmit t ee an d t o ld t ha t if she did no t st o p h er an t iIsl am i c ac tiv i tie s, sh e woul d be ex pel l ed f rom s chool a

nd r eported to the r

evolu tion ary guard s. The statemen

t clai me d that although K

hei rkhahv ash pas sed her un

iv ersi ty en trance exam

, she was pu t o n p r o ba t io n fo rt wo yea r s a nd o r de r ed t o su pp o r t t he I sla mic r eg ime, co mply w it h I sla mic dress code and attend her l ocal m osque. When

she was fi nal ly adm itted to the uni

versi ty, she was put on p ro bat ion fo r r efusing t o a t t end t he mos que and vo icing op po sitio n t o t he r egime. The uni versi ty then reported her to t he revol utionary guards. Accordin

g to the statement, she a

nd he r fat her wer e bo t h det ained by t he r evo lut ionar y guar ds a nd we re inter ro gat ed a nd t or t ur ed. She
married a m

an who all eged

l y wasal so a supporter of

MEK and worked

as a j ourna l i st f or a magaz ine tha t was shut do wn by the re gime. H e wa s also inter ro gat ed a nd t or t ur ed by t he
re volu t ionar y guar ds. The st at ement co nclude d by st at ing t hat Kheirk hahvas h was det ained a nd to rtured a second tim

e and upon h

er releas e, she wen

t into hidin

g and was a

ble to get out of Iran and come to t he Uni

ted S tat es.1-10-0151

4

The st at ement was signed , bu t Kheirk hahvas h maintains t hat t he signa t ur e o n t he statement i s not hers and poi nts out t hat it does not match other documen ts containi

ng he r actual si gnatu re. She al so m

ai nta i ns tha t sh e di d n ot se e the s tate men

t un ti l Ba ni as sadi sent h er a ve rs i on of the statemen

t t hat had b een transl

ated in to Farsi in la te August/early

Septembe

r, after her applic ation ha

d al ready b een f

il ed. He to ld h

er she n eeded to mem

orize the statemen

t for her upcomi ng i nterview wi

th im mi gration off

ic ia ls . Khei rkhahv ash told h im that t he statemen

t was f alse , s h e k

n ew n othi n g a b out th e MEK, her

h us b an d h ad n ev er b een a j our n al i st a n d w as n ot a sup po rt er of ME K, a nd she co uld no t t est ify t o s uch fac t s. B aniassa di t old her t hat beca use t he app licatio n had a lread y been filed, she had no cho ice but t o t est ify t o t hos e fact s o r she wo uld be denied asylum and w ou ld be de po rt ed t o I ra n for fil ing a false a pplicat ion. At t he immigr at io n int er vie w, Khe irk ha hva sh t es t ified t hr o ug h a t r an sla t o rt o t he fac t s in the verifi ed personal

statement. At the concl

usi on of the i

nterview, Bani

assadi to ld h er that her applic ation would b e approved and that she would get her green c ard. In fact, the asy lum appl i cation wa s deni

ed an d sh e was serv ed wi th a n otice to appear i n i m m i gration court f

or a removal heari ng. Wh en sh e asked Ban

iassadi to expl ai n the m eani ng of the n

ot ic e, he told her t hat her app licatio n had be en r efer re d t o a n imm igra t ion jud ge a nd it wo uld be r eco nsider ed a nd gra nte d. H e agai

n tol d her th at h i s oth er Iran i an cl i en ts h ad cl ai med pe rs ecution on

ac cou nt of th ei r s y m pa th i es f or th e MEK an d w ere g ra n ted asy l um . H e w ar

n ed h er th at i f sh e tr i ed to wit hdr aw he r p er so nal st at ement , t he immi gr at ion jud ge w ou ld o rd er t hat she be dep or t ed t o I ra n. Khei rkhahv ash s ai d that before her rem oval heari ng, Bani assadi to ld h er that her father had t o t est ify

t o t he fact s in the per so nal st at ement . Whe n Kheirk hahvas h sho wed t he st at ement1-10-0151

5

to h er f ath er , he b ec am

e v er y an gr y wi th h er . H e ref

us ed to tes ti f y an d tri ed to get Ba n i as sa di to wi th dr aw th e a sy l um appl i ca ti on . H e s ai

d th at h e d i d n ot wa n t to li e, th at n

ob ody i n Ira n su pp orts the MEK, and that he

did n ot want to get in

volv ed i n an ythi ng to do with the M

EK. Her father
even tuall y a greed to t estif

y a fter Bani assadi persuaded hi

m that if h

e di d not t estif

y, h is daughter
wo uld be d epo rt ed t o I ra n. On April 15, 2002, a hearing was hel d before an i

mm igration j udge and Khei

rkhahvash ’s father testif

ie d to the facts in

the personal

statement. The governm ent atto rney

in tro duced evidenc e t hat t he ME K was listed as a t er ro rist or ganiza t ion by t he At t or ney Gene ra l of t he Uni ted St ates. Khei

rkhahv ash m ai ntain s that her fa

ther’s testim

ony was i nconsistent, and that Bani assadi requested a continuan

ce becaus e he real

ized he n eeded addi

tional evi dence. He prepared an additi onal af

fi davi t for her mot her to sign

that d escribed i

n detail how Khei

rkhahvash was beaten and to rtu red because of her suppor t for t he MEK. On Apri l 24, 2002, Kheirkhah

vash testifi ed accordin

g to the facts in

the verifi ed personal

statement. The i

mm igration judge

deni ed he r as y l um appl i ca ti on a nd he r wi thh ol di ng of rem ova l req ue st, f i nd i ng tha t sh e w asa m em be r of a t er ro rist or ganiza t ion and t hat she p os ed a dang er t o t he se cur ity o f the Unit ed S t at es. The j udge ordered that sh e b e dep orted to Iran. On Ma y 24, 200 2, B an

i as sadi f i l ed a m oti on to rec ons i de r. Th

e m oti on wasde ni

ed on July 12, 2002 , and Bani assadi f il ed an appeal wi

th the Bo ard o f Im

mi grat ion Appeals on August 12, 200 2. O n O ctob er 1 0, 2 002 , K he i rkh ah vash wa s ta ke n i nto c us tody by the De pa rtm en t of Hom el an d Se cu ri ty , Im m i gra ti on a nd Cu stom s En f orce men t. Sh e w asrel ea se d f rom de ten ti on1-10-0151

2 Both the com pl ai nt a nd appe l l an t’s br i ef sta te that K he i rkh ah vash wa s detai ne d on Oc tob er 10 , 20 03 , a

n d r el ea se d F eb ru ar y 24 , 20 04 , un

der a n ord er of su pervi si on . D ocu men ts fi le d by the appelle e state t hat Kh ei rkhahv ash was detain ed on October 10, 2002, and was released Feb

ruary 4, 2003. The onl

y of fi ci al documen t in the record rel ating to the detention i s an orde r of su pe rvi si on d ate d F eb rua ry 4, 2 003 . Th

us , b ec au se

K he i rkh ah vash wa s rel ea se d f rom cus tody i n F ebruary

2003, we concl

ude s he wasi n f act deta i ne d i n O ctober 2 002. 6 under an order of superv

is ion da ted February

4, 2003 2 . On

Oc tobe r 8, 200 3, th

e B oard of Im m i gra ti on A ppe als ente

red an orde r af f i rm i ng the de ni al of K he i rkh ah vash ’s asy l um appl i ca ti on and w ithho lding o f remo val on t he bas is of her admit t ed a ffi liatio n wit h MEK. Ho weve r, t he orde r return ed the ca se to the i m m i gra ti on judg e f

or con si de rati on of K he i rkh ah vash ’s cl ai m f or protecti on un

der the Con

vention A gai nst Torture. So met ime a ft er he rr ele as e fr o m cu st o dy, Khe irk ha hva sh c o nsu lt ed wit h a nd su bse qu en t ly retained n ew counsel . The record contains a cons ent to at to rney withdrawal

dated Novemb er 24, 2003, withdrawing the appearance o f Ban iassadi as Khei rkhahvash ’s att orney. It also contains a consent to substitution of couns el dated Novemb er 25, 2003, author izin g the appearance of

her current att orney. Both documen ts are stamped as b ei

ng recei ved i n court o n Decem

ber 3, 2003. In a letter dat ed November 24, 2003, and fi le stamped Novem

ber 25, 2003 , Khei

rkhahvash
re qu ested th e A ttorn ey Re gi strati

on an d D i sc i pl i n ar y Com m i ss i on (A RD C) to i n v esti ga te Bani assadi for advisi ng he r to fi le and testif y f al sel y w ith regard to her asy

lum applic ation. On Jul y 14, 2004, K

hei rkhahv ash’ s current atto rney

fi le d a m ot ion to withdraw h

er origi nal asy lum appli cation, co ntendin

g that it was the pro duct o f i nef fectiv e assis tance of cou nsel . On August1-10-0151

7

21, 200 9, K

he i rkhah va sh f i l ed a c omp l ai

nt ag ai nst Ban i ass adi al l egi ng l egal mal practi ce a nd f raud. Baniass adi filed a mo t ion t o d ismi ss t he co mplaint as unt imely and t he t rial co ur t gr ant ed t he motion on December 18, 2009. T hi s appeal f ollows. AN AL YSIS A mot ion fo r invo lunt ar y dismi ssal und er sec t ion 2 -6 19 a dmits t he lega l sufficiency of t he
com plai nt b ut ass erts an

af f i rm ati ve def en se or othe

r m atter that av

oids or def

eats th e cl ai m . DeLuna v. Burciaga , 22 3 I l l . 2d 49 , 59(2 00 6) . “ The pur pos e of a s ec ti on 2- 61 9 m oti on i s to dis pose of i ssues of

la w and eas il

y proved i

ssues of fact earl y i n the l iti gation.” Czar

obski v . Lata , 22 7 I ll. 2 d 3 64 , 36 9 ( 20 08 )
. Whe n r ulin g o n a se ct io n 2
- 61 9 mo t io n, a c o ur t mus t int er pr et all pl eadi ngs and sup portin g docum en ts i n the l i ght m ost fa vorabl e to the n

onm ovi ng p arty . Porter v. Decatur Memorial Hospital, 22 7 Il l . 2d 343 , 35 2 (2 008 ). O ur rev i ew of a s ec ti on 2 -61 9 m

oti on to dism iss i s de novo
. Id
. Ba ni as sadi f i l ed hi s m oti on to d i sm i ss pur suan t to se cti on 2 -61 9(a

)(5 ), w hi ch prov i de s f or in volun tary di sm is sal on the grounds that the action was n ot comm enced wi thin the tim e lim ited by la w. 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(5) (West 2008). The statute o f l im itations for a l egal

ma lpractice action i s set forth i

n section 13-214.3 of the Code, whic h provides that an action a gai nst an at t or ney for damag es ba sed on t or t , c ont ra ct or ot her wise a rising o ut of a n act or omissio n in the per for mance o f pro fessio nal ser vices “must be co mmenced w ithin 2 year s fro m the t ime the person bri ngi ng the acti on knew or reasonabl y s hould h ave kn own of the i

nj ury f or which damages are sought. ” 735 ILCS 5/1 3-214. 3(b) (West 200 8). Se ction 13-214 .3 also cont ains a st at ut e o f rep os e. It pr ovid es t hat an ac t ion fo r leg al malprac t ice “may not be co mmenced in any1-10-0151

8

even t more than 6 y

ears af ter t he date on whi

ch the act or omis si on occurred.” 735 ILCS 5/13- 214.3( c) (West 200 8). In argui ng that the trial

court erred in

dis mi ssi ng he r complai nt as tim e barred, Khe irk ha hva sh r ais es mult iple iss ue s, so me o f wh ich o ve r lap an d w ill be d isc us se d a s a sing le iss ue . Fir st , Khe irk ha hva sh c o nt en ds t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in e qu at ing he rdis co ve ry in Sep t ember 2 000 t hat Baniass adi had fil ed a false asylum app licatio n wit h t he da t e o n which she knew or re aso nably shou ld have k now n of t he injury. Khe irkha hvash a rg ues t hat even if t he negligent act oc cur re d o n Augu st 1, 200 0, wit h t he fili ng o f the false asylum app licatio n, a nd she dis co ve r ed in S ep t emb er 20 00 t ha t a fa lse st at eme nt ha d b ee n file d, she did no t r ea lize at t ha t t ime that she had s

ustain ed an i nj ury, n or had she i

ncurred actual

dam ages. Kh ei rkhahv ash f urther
con ten dstha t the tri al cou rt ign ored al l eg ati ons i n th e c om pl ai nt th at s he wa s p rev en ted f rom tim el y di scoveri ng h er i nj uri es b eca

use of l anguag e an

d cul tural ba rri ers. As an in itial ma tt er, although b ot h parties ’ bri efs in dic ate that t he trial

court concl

uded that Khei rkhahv ash kn ew of the al

le ged negl

ige nce i n Septemb er 2000, we note t hat the trial court ’s order contains

no date for when the s

tatut e of l im itations began to run. It merel

y s tates tha t Kh ei rkh ah vash ’s com pl ai nt i s d i sm i ss ed wi th prejudi ce“ asbe i ng ti me b arred by the Statu te of Li m i tati on s of 2 y ea rsi n con tra ct a n d 5 yea rsi n f ra ud .”There is n

othi n g i n th e rec ord

to i n di ca te a d et er minat io n by t he t r ial c o ur t as t o t he da t e o n w hic h Kh eir kh ah va sh k ne w o rr ea so na bly sho uld have kno wn she had a cau se o f act ion. The re is also no e vidence in the r eco rd t hat t he t rial co ur t “ignor ed” allegat ions in t he co mplaint t hat langua ge a nd cu ltu ra l barr iers p re vent ed t he tim el y di scovery

of K he i rkhah va sh ’si nj uri es.1-10-0151

9

We n ow tur n to t he i ssue of wh ether the trial

court erred in

dis mi ssi ng the com

pla in t as t ime ba rr ed
. We ag r ee wit h Kh eir kh ah va sh t ha t t he st at ut e o f limit at io ns d id n o t be gin t o run in lat e A ug us t /e ar ly Se pt emb er 20 00 wh en Ba nia ss ad i fax ed he ra c o py o f t he pe r so na l st at eme nt in Farsi and sh e told hi m i t was false. The gen

eral rul e i n Il li nois is that a cause of acti on for l egal malpra ct ice do es no t acc ru e unt il the ent ry o f an adve rse judg ment, set t lement, or dismissal of t he underl yi ng action in

whi ch the pl ai ntif f h as becom e entangl ed due to t he al

le ged negl

ige nt advi ce of h er attorney . Warnock v. KarmWinand & Patterson , 376 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 36 4, 371- 72 (20 07). This co ur t has no t ed t hat “[t ]he re may be rar e ca ses in which it is painfully obviou s, p rio r t o a ny adverse rul

in g agai nst the pl ai

ntif f cl ie nt, that he has b een i

nj ured as a resul

t o f profe ssional negl ige nce.” Id . at 372. Ho wever, t hi s is n ot such a case. Khei

rkhahvash

did not speak Englis

h
or un de rs tan d the i m m i gra ti on proce ss

an d re l i ed upon the ad vi ceof he r attor ne y . It w oul

d n ot have b een obvious t o her at that p oint in time that she would be deport ed on t he basis of the fal se asy lum applic ation. In f

act, Bani assadi

assured Kh

ei rkhahv ash that he h

ad success ful

ly obtaine d poli tical asy lum for other clients on those grounds and that she would be deport ed i f s

he di d not go along wit h t he st or y. Thu s, t he ea rliest dat e at which t he st at ut e o f li mitat ions c ou ld have st ar t ed t o r un is Apr il 24, 2 002 , t he da t e t he immi gr at ion jud ge e nt er ed a n or der finding Kh ei rkhah va sh to be a m em ber of a terrori st organ

izati on an d orderi ng h er dep ortation

to Iran. Mo r eo ve r , we ag r ee wit h Kh eir kh ah va sh t ha t du e t o lan gu ag e a nd cu lt ur al b ar r ier s, it is
un l i ke l y tha t sh e k ne w or rea son

ab l y sh oul d have k now n e ve n a t tha t ti me that s he

ha d a ca us e of act ion ag ainst Baniass adi, who co nt inued t o r eas sur e her t hat he wo uld ap pea l the d ecisio n and t he o rd er wo uld be r ever sed . H ow ever , o nce Khe irkha hvash o bt ained ne w co unse l, it c an no1-10-0151

10

longer be argued that she should n ot reasonably

have known that she had a cause of action against Ba nia ss ad i. He rne w c o un se l o bvio us ly kn ew ab o ut t he fals e a sylu m ap plic at io n a nd t he effe ct it had on her cli

ent, as evidenced by

the fili ng of an A

RDC complai

nt against Baniassadi on those gr o un ds o n N o ve mbe r25 , 20 03
. T hu s, t he ve ry lat es t da t e t ha t t he st at ut e o f limit at io ns c o uld have s t ar t ed t o r un is No vember 2 5, 200 3, which means t hat , ba rr ing any app licable exce pt ion, her cau se o f act ion exp ired on N ove mber 2 5, 200 5, and t he t rial co ur t co rr ect ly dism issed t he
com pl ai n t. Next, Kheirkhah

vash argues that t he court erred in apply in g the sta tut e of li

mi tat ions as a bar t o t his act ion bec aus e t he neg ligence p er pet ra t ed by Ba niassad i was c ont inuo us a nd Khei rkhahvash

in curred increasin

gly severe in juries. Sh e c o nt en ds t ha t he rco mpla int wa s t imely fi le d because

Bani assadi comm itted continuous acts of n eglige nce un til Decem ber 3, 2003, when he wi thdrew as Kheirkhah

vash’s counsel, at which ti

me the wrongful

acts ceased. Thus, because he rco mpla int wa s file d o n Au gu st 21 , 20 09 , Khe irk ha hva sh ma int ain s t ha t it wa s w it hin t he six ye ar statut e of repose and was therefore tim

el y f il ed. We need not address t he i ssue of whether Banias sadi’s negligen ce was continuous because thi s a rgu men t has n o meri t on i ts f ac e. Eve n i f wewere to a

gre e that the s tatute

of rep ose di d n ot start r unni

ng unti l B ani assadi ’s wi

thdrawal, the com

pla in t would not have b een ti

me ly fi le d under the statute of l

i m i tations. A

statute of l i m i tations an d a s tatute of re

pose a re not in terchangeabl e. A sta tute of l i m i tations govern s th e ti me w i thi n w hi ch l aw sui ts m ay be f i l ed af ter a ca us e of ac ti on has acc rued, while

a statut e of repose exti

ngui shes the action i

tself after a set peri od of tim

e, regar dl ess of w hen the ac tion

accrued. Ferg

uson v. McK

enzie , 202 Il

l . 2d 304 , 311 (2 001). In1-10-0151

11

Ferguson , our supreme court st ated: “Un l i kea s tatute

of l i m i tations , wh

i ch be gi ns run ni ng upon ac crual of a c au se of action, a st atut e of repose begins runni ng when a speci

fi c event occur s, regar dless of w hether a n acti on has a

ccrue d or whethe

r an i nj ury ha s res ul ted. [Ci tation .] A s t at ut e o f r ep o se gi ve s e ffe ct t o a p o licy d iffe r en t fr o m t ha t ad va nc ed by a statute of l i m i tations; i t is i nten ded to term

i na te the p ossi

bi l i ty of l i ab i l i ty a f ter a de fine d p er io d o f t ime, r eg ar dle ss o f a p o t en t ial p laint iff’s lac k o f kn o wle dg e o f his or her cause of acti on.” Id
. Once Baniass adi wit hdr ew a s co unse l, Kheirk hahvas h knew or re aso nably shou ld have known that she h

ad a cause of

action. A deportation order had been entered on Apri

l 24, 2002, so she al ready kn ew of he r in jury. Once sh

e obtain ed new couns el , it i s clear that she knew h er in jury had b een wrongf

ull y c aused bec ause sh

e fi le d an A RDC compl

ai nt. Al though the atto rney consent f or withdrawal

was recei ved i n court Decemb er 3, 2003, t he docum ent stated t hat it was eff ective Novemb er 24, 2 003, o ne day prior t o t he f

il in g of her ARDC compl

ain t against Baniass adi o n No vember 2 5. The re for e, she k new a t t hat t ime that she ha d a c aus e o f act ion and the statut e of l

im itations began to run. Wh

ether the statut e of repose began to run the sam

e day her action accrued o r three years earlier is irrelevant. The stat ute o f repose cou ld n ot oper ate as a st at ut e o f li

mitat ions a nd give he r six year s inst ead of t wo in which to fil e her act ion. Unde r t he statut e of l

im itations , her cause of a

ction ex pired at the latest o n Novem ber 25, 2005. Thi rd, Khei rkhahv ash argues

that t he trial

court erred in

concl udin g as a m atter of law that her claim was t im e barre d when a factua l di sput e existed as t o when she discover ed Baniassadi’s1-10-0151

12

negl ige nce. We note that Khei

rkhahv ash does n

ot state anywh

ere in her bri ef wh en sh e bel ie ves she d isco ver ed B aniassa di’s neg ligence. She o bviou sly knew she had a cau se o f act ion whe n she filed he rco mpla int o n Au gu st 21 , 20 09
. Ye t she do es no t po int t o an yt hing t ha t ha pp en ed wit hin t he t wo years pr ior t o t hat dat e t hat cau sed her t o s udd enly disco ver Baniass adi’s ne gligence . S he cla ims t ha t t he st at ut e o f r ep o se be ga n t o run wh en Ba nia ss ad i wit hd r ew as co un se l an d h is
wron gf ul ac ts c ea se d. B ut s he

also c l ai m s th at s he di d n ot di sc ove

r th at s he ha d a ca us e of ac ti on when she retai ned h er current counsel

in Novem ber 2003, becaus e Bani

assadi did n ot adm it to her current counsel

that he had b een grossl

y n eglige nt in hi s representation. This argum ent is without merit . I t sug ges t s t hat t he o nly way Kheirkhahva sh’s c ur re nt co unse l cou ld have lea rne d o f the
ne gli gen ce was throug

h B an i ass adi hi m sel f
. In fac t , Khe irkha hvash filed an ARD C co mplaint o n No vember 2 5, 200 3, in which she
re qu ested an i n v esti ga ti on of Ba n i as sa di f or adv i si n g h er to f i l e a n d te sti f y f alse l y wi th re ga rd to her asy lum applic ation. Her current counsel most certain

ly knew or should have known at that tim e that she had a

cause of action. Theref

ore, at the very

la test, t he statute o f l

im itations began t o run o n N o ve mbe r25 , 20 03
. While t he t ime w he n a n inju r ed pa r t y kn ew o rr ea so na bly sh o uld have k now n of t he injury and t hat it w as w ro ngfully cause d is us ually a dispu t ed q ues t ion t o be
res ol ve d by the f i nd er of f ac t, i f i t i s a ppa ren t f rom the un di spute d f ac ts th at on l y one con cl us i on can be drawn , the q ues tion be com es on e f or the cour

t. Witherell v. Weimer

, 85 Ill . 2d 146, 156 (1981) . There is nothing i n the recor d to in

dicate that there is any

possibi li ty that Kheirkhah

vash did not kn

ow of th e negl i gen ce a t the ti me sh e f i l ed th e A RDC com plai nt. Th us, the tri al

court did n ot err in determi ni ng as a m atter of law that her compl ai nt was tim

e barred.1-10-0151

13

Fi nal ly , Khei rkhahv ash contends

that under the doctr in

e of equi table estoppel, Bani

assadi is pre vent ed fr om r aising a st at ut e o f li mitat ions d efense beca use he eng age d in act s o f fraud ulent
co ncea lment. The se a re act ually two sep ar at e ar gument s: ( 1) t hat frau dulent co ncea lment by Bani assadi operates as an exception to both the statut e of l im itations and the statute o f repose,
and (2) that Ban

i ass adi i s eq ui tabl y estoppe d f

rom r ai si ng a statute of l i m i tations de f

en se. We f irst address the f

raudulen t concealm

ent argumen

t. Sect ion 13-215 of

the Code pr ovid es t hat if a per so n liable to an ac t ion fra udu lently co ncea ls the cau se o f such a ct ion fro m the kno wledg e o f the per so n ent itled t her et o, t he ac t ion may be co mmenced a t any time wit hin fi ve years af ter t he person discovers that he o r she has a cause of action. 735 ILCS 5/1 3-215 ( West 200 8). Ou

r s upr em e c ourt h ashe l d that i

n a ddi ti on to op era

ti ng asan exce ption to th

e s tatute of li mi tations, section 13-215, when applic abl e, is a n exception to the stat ute of repose in le gal
mal practi ce acti ons. DeLuna , 223 Ill . 2d at 74. “As a ge ner al matt er , o ne alleging fr aud ulent co ncea lment must ‘sho w affirmat ive act s by the fi duci ary des ign

ed to pr even

t t he di scovery

of the action.’ ” Clay v. Kuhl , 189 Ill . 2d 603, 613 (2000) (quot in

g Hagney v. Lopeman , 14 7 I ll. 2 d 4 58 , 46 3 ( 19 92 ) )
. Ho we ve r , t he r e is a w ide ly
r ec o gn ize d e xc ep t io n t o t his r ule in c as es wh er e t he ex ist en ce o f a fid uc iar y re lat io nsh ip is cle ar ly estab l i shed. DeLuna , 223 Ill . 2d at 76 (citin g Crow ell v. Bilandic , 81 Il

l . 2d 422 , 428 (1 980)). “[A] fiduciar y who is s ilent, and t hus fails t o fu lfi ll hi s du t y to disclo se mat er ial facts co ncer ning t he exist ence of a cau se o f act ion, has fra udu lently co ncea led t hat act ion, even w itho ut affirmative acts or re pres en tations.” (Em

phasi s om i tted.) Id . at 77. Our suprem e court has als o recognized that an attorney -cl i en t rel ati onsh

i p con sti tutes a f i duci ary relati onsh

i p. Id . (and cases ci

ted1-10-0151

14

there i n). Al though it i s not necessary to show af

fi rmati ve acts whe

re a fi duci ary rel

ationsh ip h as be en clearl y estab l i shed, our suprem

e court has i

ns i sted on stri ct pleadi

ng r equi rem en ts f or a plai ntif f al l egi ng f raudu l en t conce al men t. Hagney v. Lopeman , 147 Il l . 2d 458 , 463-6 4 (199 2). Sp ec i f i ca l l y , “ to ex cu se di l i gen ce i n di sc ov eri n g th e f ra ud , the p l ai

n ti f f m us t attr i b ute th e f ai l ur e to dis cover to t he trust and conf ide nce pl aced i n the f iduc ia ry.” Id . at 464. “In order t o stat e a cl ai m f or fraudule

nt conceal

me nt, a plai ntif f m ust all ege that the defen

dant concealed a m

aterial fact whe n he was under a duty

to dis cl ose that fact to pla in tif f.” Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co. , 174 Il l . 2d 482 , 500 (1 996). In DeLuna , the plai

ntif fs alle ged that their atto rney fai le d to reveal

pertinen t facts, misl ed th em b y tel l i n g th em th ei r c as e w as

goi n g w el l wh en i t h ad , i n f ac t, b een di sm i ss ed , a n d f ai l ed to di scl ose m aterial f acts b eari ng on the procedur

al status of the c ase . DeLuna , 223 Il l . 2d at 79 -80. Moreover, the

pl ai nti f f s a l l eg ed tha t the y coul d n ot sp ea k En gl i sh an d that they

rel i ed i n g ood f ai th on th ei r attorney ’sreas sura

nc es. Id . a t 80- 81. The sup re me co ur t held t hat t hese allegat ions
were suf f i cien t to meet the pl

eadi ng r equi rem en ts f or fra udul en t conce al men t. Id . at 81. Her e, it is do ubt ful tha t Kheirk hahvas h’s co mplaint meet s t he plea ding r equ irement s. T he
com pl ai n t doe s n ot co n tai n an y re f eren ce to f ra ud ul en t con ce al men t. In h er f ra ud cou n t, Khei rkhahvash

focuses on Bani assadi’ s in tentional, knowing, and wi ll ful conduct in

fi li ng a fal se appli cation rat her than on hi s representat ions and ass urances to her and her trust in those
assu ra nces . Mo re ove r, even if we w er e t o d et er mine that Kheirk hahvas h’s co mplaint meet s t he plead ing re quir ement s for frau dulent co ncea lment, it ca nnot save her legal malpr act ice ac t ion. As1-10-0151

15

not ed a bove , se ct ion 1 3- 215 op er at es a s an e xcep t ion t o bo t h t he st at ut e o f li mitat ions a nd t he st at ut e o f r ep o se . T hu s, if t he st at ut e o f r ep o se ha d a lre ad y ru n a nd Khe irk ha hva sh s uc ce ss fully ple d fr au du len t co nc ea lment , se ct io n 1 3- 21 5 w o uld giv e h er an ad dit io na l five yea r s fr o m t he t ime she dis co ve r ed t ha t she ha d a ca us e o f ac t io n in w hic h t o file h er co mpla int
. Ho we ve r , it is w ell set t led in Illinois law t hat if a rea so nable amo unt of t ime remains in the app licable li mitat ions peri od wh en the p l ai ntif f di scovers th

e ca use of a cti on, se cti on 13- 215 wi l l not ex tend that peri od. See, e.g. , Leff

ler v. Engler, Zoghlin, & Mann, Ltd. , 15 7 Ill. App. 3d 7 18, 721 (19 87) ; Barratt v. Goldberg , 296 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 25 2, 258 ( 1998)(and cas es c i ted therei n). Ba n i as sa di f i l ed th e f alse asy l um appl i ca ti on on A ug us t 1, 20 00 . Th

us , un der the statu

te of re pose, K he i rkhah va sh ’scaus e of

action woul

d ex tin gui sh on A ugust 1, 2006. A

t the very la test, she knew sh

e had a caus e of action a

t t he tim e she retai ned n ew counsel

and f il ed a compl ai nt agai nst Bani assadi with the A

RDC on Novem

ber 25, 2003. At that t im e, alm ost t hree years re mained und er t he st at ut e o f rep os e. Mo re ove r, unde r Kheir khahva sh’s a rg ument t hat t he statute of repose did not star

t to run un

til Ban i ass adi wi thdre w, the re woul d ha ve be en si x y ears rem ai ni ng un de r th e s tatute

of rep ose . Th

us , un der b oth p oss i

bl e date s, a rea son ab l e a moun t of t ime r ema ine d s uc h t ha t ev en if Khe irk ha hva sh s uc ce ss fully p led fr au du len t co nc ea lment , it wo uld op er at e o nly as a po ssible exce pt ion t o t he st at ut e o f li mitat ions a nd no t as a n exce pt ion t o t he statut e of repose. Si m i l arl y , f ra ud ul en t con ce al men t doe s n ot s av e h er mal pr ac ti ce ac ti on as an ex ce pti on to the statute of l

i m i tations. A ssu

m i ng, arguendo , th at K

he i rkh ah vash ’s ca us e of ac ti on a cc rue d on April 24, 2002, whe

n the deportation order was entered, her cause of action would ha ve ex pired1-10-0151

16

on A pri l 24, 200 4. S he

coul d then

arg uetha t when sh e di sc ove red the f rau dul en t con ce al men t on Novem be r 25 , 20 03, the

am oun t of ti me re mai ni ng un de r th e s tatute

of l i m i tations wa s n ot rea son ab l e. H owe ve

r, eve n i f he r com pl ai nt s uf f i ci en tl y pled f rau dul en t con ce al men t an d s ec ti on 13-21 5 operate d asan

ex cepti on to the statute of l

i m i tations, sh

e woul d onl y ha ve had 5 y ears from the tim e she l earned of the c ause of action, which woul d have gi ven her until Nove

mb er 25, 2008. She did not file

her compl

ai nt until August 21, 2009. Therefore, her compl ai nt was untim el y un der section 13-215. We s imilarly r eje ct Khe irk hah vas h’s eq uit able es t o pp el a rg ume nt . I n o rd er fo r a pla int iff to i n v oke estopp el ag ai n st a sta tute of l i m i tati on s def ense , “ th e p l ai n ti f f m us t h av e rel i ed on ac ts or re pr ese nt at ions o f the defend ant which ca use d t he plaint iff t o r efra in from fili

ng su it w ithin t he applic abl e statut e of l

im itations .” Leff

ler , 1 57 I ll. App. 3d a t 722 -2 3. Ho weve r, “[t ]he do ct rine
o f eq uit ab le e st o pp el w ill no t ap ply t o a c as e if d efe nd an t ’s co nd uc t t er minat ed wit hin a mple t ime to allow the pl

ai ntif f an oppor tunity

to fi le a cause of a

ction wi thin the li mi tation period.” Barratt , 29 6 I ll. A pp . 3d at 25 9. Ba nia ss ad i’s co nd uc t t er minat ed o n N o ve mbe r24 , 20 03
. T his is roughly the sam e tim e that Khei

rkhahv ash f il ed an A RDC compl

ai nt agai nst Bani assadi , evidence that she knew or reasonab ly should have known that her i nj ury was wrongful ly caused. She then had t wo years unde r t he st at ut e o f li mitat ions fo r leg al malprac t ice ac t ions t o file her claim and t he r ef o r e, t he do ct r ine o f e qu it ab le e st o pp el d o es no t ap pl y. As a fina l mat t er , we ad dr es s d efe nd an t ’s r eq ue st fo rsa nc t io ns u nd er I llino is S up r eme Court Rul e 375 (eff

. Feb. 1, 1994). Rule

375(b) provides

that if a reviewi ng court det ermi

nes that an appeal is fri volous, or that it was not t aken i n good fai

th or for an im

proper purpo se, an1-10-0151

17

appro priate sanction may

be i mposed upon t he party or t he atto rney of the party. Ill . S. Ct . R. 375 (b ) (e f f . F eb . 1, 1 994 ). H owe ve

r, a s def en da nt a l so c orre ctl

y note s, th e i m pos i ti on of
san cti ons i s a m atter l ef t stri ctl y to the app el

l ate court’ s discre

tion
. Residential Carpentry, Inc. v. Illino is W ork ers ’ Com pensationComm ’n , 389 Il l . Ap p. 3d 97 5, 976 ( 2009) . We agree that the re is l ittle or no merit to this appeal but in the exerci se of our discret ion, we decli ne to impose
san cti ons. CONCLUSION Based on the forego in

g analy sis, we hold that the tr ial

cour t did not e rr in determi ni ng as a ma tt er of law that Khei

rkhahv ash’ s compl

ai nt was tim

e barred. Under the m

ost generous i nte rpreta ti on of the f ac ts, th e l ate st dateat w

hi ch sh e k ne w or rea son

ab l y sh oul d have k now n of he r i njury an d that i t wa s w rongf ul l y ca us ed i s N ove m be r 25 , 20 03. Th

us , un de r th e s tatute

of lim itat ions fo r leg al malprac t ice ac t ions, her cau se o f act ion exp ired on N ove mber 2 5, 200 5. We f urth er c onc l ude tha t he r cl ai m tha t he r com pl ai nt wasti mel y f i l ed un de r th e s i x- yea r s tatute of repose because def

endan t’s continuous n

eglige nt actions di

d not cease until

he wi thdrew as counsel on Novemb er 24, 2 003, is without merit. A stat ute o f repose do es not o perat e as a sta tute of l i m i tations an d gi ve a p l ai nti f f si x y ea rs i n w hi ch to f i l e i ns tead of two a f ter a ca us e of act ion ac cr ues . Finally, even if we w er e t o d et er mine that her co mplaint met t he plea ding req ui rem en ts f or f rau dul en t con ce al men t an d tol l ed the sta tute of l i m i tations , h er c au se

of ac ti on wo uld ha ve ex pir ed o n N o ve mbe r25 , 20 08
. Mo r eo ve r , eq uit ab le e st o pp el d o es no t ap ply be ca us e d efe nd an t ’s co nd uc t t er minat ed at t he t ime he rca us e o f ac t io n a cc rue d, allo win g a mple time to file h

er complai

nt within the tw o-year stat ute o f l

im itations.1-10-0151

18

Af f i rmed.1-10-0151

19 REPORTE R OF DECISION S - ILLINOI S APPELLATE COURT

(Front Sheet to be A

tt ached to Each case)

_____________________________________________________________________________ AFR OUZ KHEIRK

HAHVA SH, Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t,
v. REZA BA NIA SSA DI, Defe ndan t-Appell ee.

_____________________________________________________________________________ No. 1-10- 0151 Ap pe llat e C o ur t o f I llino is Fi rs t Di stri ct, F ourth Di vi si on January 13, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________

PR ESI DI NG JU STI CEGA

LL A GH ER de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t. LA VIN an d PUC INSK

I, JJ., c oncu

r.

_____________________________________________________________________________ Ap pe al f r o m t he Cir cu it Co ur t o f Co o k C o un t y. Honorable R

onal d S. Davi s, Judge Presidin g.

_________________________________________________________________________ For A PPELL AN T, Law

Of f i ces of M ary L. Sf asc i otti, P.C., C

hi cago, IL (M ary

L. S f as ci otti , of co un se l)
Fo rAP PE LL E E , Jo an na C. Fr yer , Ch ica go , I L ( Jo an na C. Fr yer , o f co un se l)