FIFTH DIVISION August 17, 2007 No. 1-06- 0161 GINA M. WOLF E, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci

rcu i t Cou rt of Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, ) Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) No. 05 L 3590 ) ILE NE WOL F, ) Ho no r ab le ) Jef

frey Lawrence , Defe ndan t-Appell ee. ) Judge Presidin g. PR ESI DI NG JU STI CEO'BR

IEN de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: T his appe al

i nv olv es two cases

that we re con soli dated b ef

ore the trial

court , one bei

ng a l egal
ma lpractice act ion br ou ght by the p laintiff, and the other a br eac h of c ont ra ct act ion br ou ght by the defend ant t o w hich plaintiff had filed a c ou nt er claim. Plaint iff app eals t he or der of t he ci rcui t court gr ant ingde f

en da nt' s m oti on under section 2-619 of the C ode of Ci vi l Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2000)) to dism

iss pla int iff's leg al ma lpr ac t ice co mpla int an d h er co un t er cla im in the d efenda nt 's breach of contract acti on. On appeal, plai ntif f argues the trial court erred in

ruli ng that judi

ci al estoppelba

rre d pl ai nti f f f rom b ringing he r leg al malprac t ice co mplaint and her co unt er claim. We reverse and remand f

or furt her proce edin

gs. On or a b out M ay 10, 2003, plaint iff

re t ained d efenda nt t o r epr ese nt her in the u nder lyi ng div orce procee di

ng, In re the Marri age of Gi na M. Pi nsl er and Bruce Pi

nsl er . After negot iations, pla int iff entered in

to a settlem

ent agreem

ent wi th her f ormer husb and on adv

ic e from defen dant that the agreement was the "best [p laintiff] co uld d o" and t hat t he terms woul d giv e pl ai ntif f m ore t han if th e c as e w ere to g o to tri al . Th e s ettl em en t ag re em en t was i nc orporate d i

nto th e j udg men t f or di ss ol ution of m arriage g ran ted on J une 9, 2004
. A t t he pr ove up, plaint iff t est ifi ed t hat sheNo. 1-06- 0161

-2-

understood t he terms

of the settlem

ent, and sh

e al so agreed to wai

ve m ai ntenan ce. On Decem ber 14, 2004, defen

dant fi le d a compl

ai nt agai nst pl ai ntif f f or breach of contract
re gar ding pla

in tif f' s f ai lure to pay f

or service s rendered in the div orce pro ceedi

ng. Pl ai ntif f f il ed a
co un t er cla im

alle gin g that defenda

nt had engaged i n legal ma lpractice. On March

31 , 2 00 5, pla int iff fi le d a separate le gal

ma lpractice action agai

nst def endan t. Plai ntif f al le ged in her legal ma lpractice ac ti on t hat defend ant had f

ail ed to di scover h

und reds of th ousan ds of dol l arsin the p os sess ion o f the
ex- husba nd

at th e ti me sh e en tered i n to th e a gr eemen t. Fur t her mor e, plaint iff

alleged t hat defend ant had wr o ng ly i nf orm ed he r th at she wa s n ot a candi date for mai

ntenan ce, and sh e negl ige ntly fai le d to in form pla in tif f of her righ t to i nte ri m attorn ey f ee s. P l ai nti f f 's com pl ai nt f orlegal malpr act ice and defen dant's com

pla in t for breach of

contract were co nsolida

ted into a si

ngle case. On Septem b er 14 , 20 05 , de f

en da n t f i l ed a s ecti on 2- 61 9 m oti on to dismiss the ma

lpractice case. Defend ant ar gue d t hat plaint iff 's malpra ct ice claims wer e bar re d by her t est imony at t he pr ove up t hat she u nder st oo d and ag re ed to th e te rm s of th e s ettl em en t ag re em en t. Defend ant ask ed t he courtt o dis miss t he malp r ac t ice cla ims o n t he ba sis of j udicial estoppe l
. The t rial co ur t gr ant ed t he
m oti on on Decem

ber 7, 2005, dism

is si ng pl ai ntif f' s legal ma lpractice acti on

an d h er cou n tercl ai m to plaint iff 's compl ai nt for breach

of contract. Plain

tif f f il ed a m ot ion to reconsi der that was deni ed on Jan uary 9, 2006. Defen

dant's caus e of action f

or breach of c ontract was se

vered an d tran sf erred
. On Jan uary 13, 2006, pla int iff filed t his ti mel y appe al of the orde r dism i ss i ng he r leg al mal pra cti ceac ti on and he r c ou nt er claim to defend ant 's bre ach o f co nt ra ct act ion. A se cti on 2- 61 9 m oti on to dism i ss ad m i ts th e l eg al suf f i ci en cy of th e c om pl ai n t, b ut a ss er ts af f i rm ati v e m atte r that a v oi dsor d ef

ea ts the c l ai m . DeL una v. Burciaga , 223 Il l . 2d 49, 5 9 (200 6).No. 1-06- 0161

-3-

A se cti on 2- 61 9 m oti on to dism i ss ad m i ts th e tr uth of a ll well-plead ed fac t s in the com plai nt. Coady
v. Ha rpo, Inc. , 30 8 Il

l . A pp. 3d 1 53, 158 (19 99) . The tri al cou rt' s g ran t of a s ec ti on 2 -61 9 m

oti on to dis mi ss i s revi ewed de no vo . DeL una , 223 Ill . 2d at 59. Judi ci al estoppel provi des thata

par t y who a sser t s a p ar t icular po sitio n in a legal pr oc eed ing is est op ped fro m asser t ing a co nt ra ry po sitio n in a subse que nt l egal procee di ng. Bid an i v. Le wis , 285 I ll. A pp . 3d 54 5, 5 50 (1 99 6) . Th

e doctr i n e of j udi ci al estopp el i s des i gn ed to prote ct the i

nte gri ty of t he cou rtsb y pr ev en ti n g l i ti ga n ts f rom de l i b erate ly shifting p os itio ns t o s uit t he exige ncies o f the
m om en t. Bidani , 2 85 I ll. App. 3d a t 550 . Fo r jud icial est op pel t o a pply, five element s must be pr es en t: (1) the party estopped mus t have taken

two po si tions; (2) that are factuall

y i nconsistent; (3) in a s ep arate

j udi ci al or q ua si -j udi ci al ad m i n i strati v e proc ee di

n g; (4 ) i n ten di n g th e tr i er of f act to acceptt he t ru t h of t he fact s allege d; and (5 ) ha ve su cce ede d in t he first pr oc eed ingand recei ved a be ne fit there

by
. La rs on v. O' Do nne ll , 36 1 Il

l . A pp. 3d 3 88, 398 (20 05) . Th i s c ourt h ashe l d that f

or judi ci al estopp el to apply , t he two p ositions taken must be " t o t ally

i nc onsi sten t." (Em phasi s ad ded.) Bidani , 285 Ill . App. 3d at 550. Defend ant argues that at t he dissolution proceedin g, plai ntif f un equi vocally testifi ed that she
un ders tood and a gr eed t o a ll the t er ms of t he ma rital settlem ent agreem

ent and sh e testif ie d t hat she took a "f ull , com plete par t" i n n egoti ati ng th e term s of the ag reeme

nt. Defen

dant contends that plaint iff 's testim ony a t t he di ssolution proce ed in g is to tall y i nconsistent with h

er cla im in her
mal pr acti ce com pl ai n t th at sh e d

i d n ot un ders tan d a n d agr ee to th e m ari tal settl em en t. Revi ew of the record in

dic ates that plai

ntif f' s testim ony a t t he di ss ol

ution proce edi

ng i s n ot t o t ally in consi stent with h

er ma lpractice compl

ai nt. In her m

al practicecompl

ai nt, plai ntif f al le ged thatNo. 1-06- 0161

-4-

her t est imony at t he disso lut ion p ro cee ding had been p re dicat ed o n seve ra l negligent act s and misrepr ese nt at ions mad e t o he r by t he de fendant , a nd t hat she d id no t disco ver t hos e neg ligent acts and m i srep res en tations un ti l af ter th e s ettlem en t agree men t ha d b een e nte red an d the di ss ol

ution pr oc eed ingha d b ee n c o mp let ed
. S pe cif ica lly, plaint iff

alleged t hat defend ant failed t o ha ve ap pr ais als
ma de o f the e x-h usban d's n ume rous busi ness in terests; never obtai

ned an d/or analy

zed fi nan ci al records of t he ex- husba nd's num erous busi ness ven tures; refuse d

t o w or k wit h a fo re nsic acc ou nt ant who previously

had b een retai

ned to inv

estigate the ex-h

usban d's as sets and b

usi ness transac t ions; fai le d to di sc ove

r an d re cover h

un dre dsof thousands of dol

la rs that the ex-husb and h

ad di ssi pated
orconcealed; f

ai le d to advi se her

about her right to seek in terim atto rney f

ees; and f ail ed to advi se her that she was

eligi ble for revi

ewabl e m ai ntenan ce. In connection with h

er mal practiceco mplaint, plaint iff fil ed a n affidavit in which she simila r ly stated that her testim

ony a t t he dissolution proceedin g had b een predi

catedon se v eral n eg l i gen t acts and misr ep r es en t at io ns mad e t o he rby t he de fe nd an t . S pe cif ica lly, pla int iff st at ed in

her af fi davi t t hat defend ant f

ai l ed to d isco ver and r eco ver "hund re ds o f tho usa nds o f do llars" in her ex- husba nd's po sses sion; misr ep r es en t ed t o pla int iff t ha t t he r e w er e n o t o o ls to be used to dis cover such f in anci al informat ion; m

i srep re se n ted to pla in tif f that she was ineligibl

e t o r ece ive subst ant ial maintenanc e; and to ld pl ai ntif f s he would not t ake the case to trial without mor e money

, but fail ed to advi se pla int iff of h er ri ght to see k i nteri m attorney f ees that woul

d ha ve enab l ed pl

ai ntif f to go to tria

l
. Pla int iff contends that, had def

endan t conducted meaningful disco ver y of t he h us b an d' s a ss ets
an d in fo rmed he rt ha t she wa s e ligible f or m ai nte na nc e a nd f or i nte ri m attorn ey f ee s, s he woul d n ot h av e en tered i n to th e s ettl

em en t ag re em en t.No. 1-06- 0161

-5-

The re is not hing incons iste nt abo ut t he plaint iff ent er ing a se t t lement agr eement and t est ify ing in su pp o r t t he r eo f ba se d o n r ep r es en t at io ns ma de to h er by the defe ndan t, and later f

il in g a ma lpractice compl

ai nt based on t he disc ove ry t hat t he r epr ese nt at ions mad e t o he r by t he de fendant alle ge dly were fal se. This, t hen, is not a ca se in which t he plaint iff deliber at ely has shifte d po sitio ns to suit t he ex

i genc i esof

t he mo men t an d i s a t t ac ki ng t he int eg r it y o f t he co ur t sys t em. Ac co r di ng ly, ju di cia l es t o pp el d o es no t ap pl y. Th is ca se i s s i m i l ar to Mu

ng o v. Tay

l or , 355 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2004). Mungo sued he r form er attorney f or ma l practi ce a ri si ng f rom th e attorney

's repre sen tation of h er ina di vorce case. Mungo , 3 55 F.3 d at 973 . Mu ngo t est ifi ed t hat she w as c oe rc ed by her at t or ney into signing t he
ma rital se t t leme nt ag r ee men t an d t ha t she did no t r ec eiv e t he be ne fit of p ro per legal ad vice fro m the atto rney be f ore si gni ng th at agre em en t. Mungo , 355 F.3dat 981 . T he at t or ney arg ued t hat t he do ct rine of j udic ia

l e stoppel barred such

testim ony b ecause Mun

go t estif ie d in the underl

yi ng di vorce pr oc eed ingtha

t sh e h ad f ree l y an d vol un t ar ily ent er ed int o t he se t t lement a gr eement , t hat no o ne forced her t o e nt er t he ag re ement , a nd t hat she w as p leased wit h her at t or ney's re pr ese nt at ion. Mungo , 355 F.3d at 981. T he S ev en t h C ir cu it Co ur t o f Ap pe als fo un d t ha t ju di cia l es t o pp el d id no t ap pl y: "Judici al estoppe l i s i na ppl i cab l e herebe caus e, con

trary t o [ t he at t or ney's] s ugg est ion, t he positi on espoused

by Mungo in this ca se is no t 'clear ly i nco nsist ent ' wit h t he t est imony she gave in t he und er lyi

ng st at e co ur t divo rc e pr oc eed ing. [ Cita t ion] Mung o's po sit io n a t t r ial in t his ca se m ay b e s um med upas f oll ows : sh e adm

i ts th at sh e a gr ee d to sign t he se t t lement agr eement butshe c ont ends t hat her willi ngnes s t o d o s o w as t he pro duct o f [the att orney's]No. 1-06- 0161

-6-

unduepr essu re and inad equ at e lega l advice. Mung o's ear lier t est imony t hat she e nt er ed t he set t lement agreem

ent freel y a nd vol untaril y i s not clear

ly incons iste nt wit h her cur re nt con vi cti on t ha t [ t he at t o rne y] gave h er bad l egal advi ce and p re ssu re d her into acc ept ing t he agree men t. * * * Fin ally, *** i

t would m ake no s ense t o p er mit [t he at t or ney] t o invo ke t he do ct rine o f ju dic ial est op pel t o ba r Mu ngo 's t est imony becau se, assu ming Mungo 's allegat ions are correct , [the a t t or ney's ] bad legal advi ce and press

ure convi nced Mung o t o g ivet he t est imony in the st at e co ur t divo rc e pr oc eed ingin the fi rst place. As t he [ lowe r] co ur t not ed, 'it w ou ld har dly be app ro pr iate for t he at t or ney who gave that bad adv

ic e to say that because h

er cli ent testif ie d in accordancewi

thth at bad advi ce t hat her client is estopped from asserting that t he advi ce [is] bad.' " Mungo , 355 F.3d at 981-82. S imila r ly, in the p re sent cas e, plaint iff co nt ends t hat defend ant 's alleged misrepr ese nt at ions effe ct ive ly

co er ced her into ent er ing into t he se t t lement a gr eement and g iving the t est imony in the di ss ol ution pr oc eed ing in supp or t t her eo f. As in Mungo , t he de fendant her e ca nnot say t hat plaint iff 's t est imony in accordance wi

th the alle ged m

is representations es

to ps her f rom asserti

ng that the advi

ce was bad. Defend ant argu es

th at La r so n v. O' Do nne ll , 361 Ill . App. 3d 388 (2 005 ), co mpels a d iff er ent
r es ul t. Larson f

il ed a l egal ma lpractice action agai

nst his atto rney

s ari si ng out o f the attorney s ' repres en tation of L arson i n c onnection wi

th h i s di vorce procee di ngs . La rs on , 36 1 I ll. App. 3d at390.No. 1-06- 0161

-7-

La rs on cl ai me d that his

atto rney s had m is in form ed him of his obligat ion u nder t he marit al set t lement agr eement r eg ar din g p ayme nt s fo rch ild supp ort and m

ai nten ance. La rs on , 361 Ill . App. 3d at 393- 94. The t rial co ur t gr ant ed t he attorney s'm otion f or sum mary j udgm en t. The trial

court found that La rs on wa s e stoppe d f

rom as serti ng hi s c au se of act ion bec aus e t he r eco rd of t he divo rc e pr oc eed ing establ is hed tha t he un ders toodhis obl

i gations u nde r the m ari tal settlem en t agreemen

t and there f ore he could n

ot take the in

consi stent position i

n the l ater pr oceed ing s t ha t he did no t un de r st an d h is obl i gations. La

rs on , 361 Ill . App. 3d at 394. The ap pe llat e c o ur t affir med , no t ing that at th e h ea ri n g to a pp rove th e m ari tal settl em en t, La rs on had i nterr up t ed t o c larify his und er st anding o f his obligat ions u nder t he marit al set t lement ag re em en t. La rs on , 361 Ill . App. 3d at 392-93, 398 . A s a re su l t, he kn ew an d u nd er st o o d h is obligat ions wh en

he si gne d the agree men t. La rs on , 361 Ill . App. 3d

at 39 8. T he ap pe llat e c o ur t he ld La rs on was judicially esto ppe d fro m tes t ify ing in the malpra ct ice ca se t hat he did no t unde rst and those obl i gations. La

rs on , 361 Ill . App. 3d at 398. In t he pr es en t ca se , de fen da nt po int s t o pla int iff's t es t imo ny in t he div o r ce pr o ce ed ing s, in whi ch she st at ed t hat she w as a gr eeing t o w aive maintena nce a nd at t or ney fees, as e vidence t hat she
un ders tood h er ob l i ga ti on s a n d ri gh ts un der the m ari tal settl em en t ag re em en t. De f en da n t also p oi n ts to the ma rital set tl ement agr eement itse lf, which st at es t hat plaint iff was fully informed of he r e xhusb and' s weal

th, proper ty, and i

ncom e. De f en da n t con ten dsth at, as in La

rs on , p laintiff shou ld be jud icia lly es toppe d f

rom as se r t ing in t he malp r ac t ice ca se t ha t she did not unde rst and he r o bligat ions
un der the m ari tal settl em en t ag re em en t. Defend ant 's arg

um en t i s n ot we l l -tak

en , as pl ai nti f f he re i s n ot al l eg i ng tha t sh e m i su nd ers toodNo. 1-06- 0161

-8-

her obli gations un

der t he set t lement a gr eement ; ra t her , she is alleging t hat t he de fendant 's neg ligent misreprese nt ati

on did no t per mit her t o mak e an infor med de cision a bou t acc ept ing t he se t t lement ag re em en t. As d isc us se d, pla int iff alle ge s in h er leg al ma lpr ac t ice co mpla int an d in her uncontradicted affid av it th at h

er attor n ey f ai l ed to co nduc t sufficient dis covery, m is represented that no discove ry was av aila ble to l ea

rn of th e ex -h us b an d' s ot h er as sets, m i srepre se n ted th at p l ai n ti f f wa s n ot en ti tl ed to
mai n ten an ce , a n d f ai l ed to tel l pl ai n ti f f of h er ri gh t to seek i nterim atto rney fees allowi ng he r to go to t rial. U nlike in La

rs on , in whi ch the cl ie nt's stateme

nts du ring the d ivo r ce pr o ce ed ing s c lea r ly contradicted

his p o sit io n in

t he malpr act ice ca se, no such showi ng was m ade h ere. Sp eci

f i cal l y , there
was no testim

ony a t t he di vorce pr oc eed ing demo nst ra t ing t hat defend ant had t old plaint iff t hat she
co uld ob tai

n i n ter i m attor n ey f ee s to pa y h er attor n ey or e x pertsso t he ca se co uld be t ak en t o t r ial;
orthat defenda

n t t old plaint iff

she c ou ld have mad e fur t her invest igat ion int o he r e x-hu sband 's busi nessan d f i na nc i al as sets; or ev

en tha t sh e h ad be en tol d of the am oun t of ma in tenance to which she was enti

tled. On t hese fact s, t hen, wher e plaint iff 's t est imony dur ing

t he div o r ce pr o ce ed ing s d id not con tradict he r posi tion i n the m al practi ce acti on, La

rs on i s i na pposi te. As discu ssed , p laintiff is not judicially esto ppe d fro m bringing a malpr act ice ac t ion. Ac co r di ng ly, we reverse the order di sm is si ng the m al practice action and rem and f or further pro ceedings. De f en da n t, however, argues that her al le ged m is conduct i s n

ot a pr oximat e ca use of p laintiff's i nj ury and urges this court t o aff irm the trial co ur t 's ju dg men t o n t ha t ba sis
. A leg al ma lpr ac t ice cla im
mus t have the f

oll owing e le me nts: (1) exi stence of an

atto rney -cli ent relationshi

p that establi shes a du ty on t he pa r t o f t he at t o rne y; (2) neglige nt act or omi ssion constitutin g a breach

of that duty; (3)No. 1-06- 0161

-9-

prox i mate cause establ

is hi ng that "but for" the attor ney 's n eglige nce, pla in tif f would have prevai

le d in the underl

yi ng acti on; an

d (4) ac tual

dam ages . Luc ey

v. L aw Of

f i ces of Pr etzel & Stouf f er, Chartered , 301 Ill . App. 3d 349, 353 (1998 ). De fen da nt co nt en ds t ha t at t he t ime p laint iff filed t his le gal mal pract ice action, plai

ntif f stil l h ad time to fil

e a section 2-1401 ( 735 ILCS 5/2 -1401 ( West 2000) ) petition against

her ex-h usban d to setas i de

th e m ari tal settl em en t an d di ss ol uti on ag re em en t. Defend ant contends thatsinc e p laint iff had a viable cau se o f act ion ag ainst her for mer sp ou se a t t he t ime sh e reta i n ed su b se qu en t cou n se l , the def

en da n t atto rney ' s a l l eg ed n eg l i gen ce

i s n ot a prox i mate ca us e o f he rinju ry. In suppor t, defendan

t cites Mitc hell v. Schai

n, Fursel & Burne y, Ltd. , 332 Ill . App. 3d 618 (2002 ). In Mit ch ell , the p l ai n ti f f h i re d th e def en da n ts to repr es en

t h i m i n a prop er ty dispute ma tt er and the case was s

ubsequen tly dis mi ssed f or wa nt o f p ro sec ut ion. Witho ut kno wledg e o f the dis miss al, pl

ai n ti f f disch arge d def

en da n ts and h ired an ot her atto rney

who fai le d to pursue the m

atter be f ore t ime ex pir ed . T he p laint iff th en f i l ed a m al pr acti ce cl ai m ag ai n st d ef en da n ts for t heir neg ligent ha ndl i ng of his ca se. Mit ch ell , 332 Ill . App. 3d at 619 . T he co ur t in Mit ch ellhe ld t hat beca use t he
sec ond att orney could have ref il ed the case, and t he cause of a ct ion was viable well afte r t he de f en da n ts were dis char ged , d efenda nt s' neg ligence w as no t t he pr oximat e ca use of p laintiff's dam ages , the l oss of a vi ab l e ca

use of a cti on. Mit ch ell , 332 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 622. Mit ch ell wo uld be o n po int if plaintiff here wer e o nly pursu inga cause of a ction agai nst her ex-hus ban d. Because suc

h a cause of action was vi

abl e after defen dant was discha rg ed, and t he
se co nd at t o rne y co uld ha ve filed t he ca se be fo r e t he ex pir at io n o f t he st at ut e o f li mitat ions , defend ant 's neg ligence in failing to pur sue a ca use of a ct ion ag ainst t he ex- husba nd woul d n ot be aNo. 1-06- 0161

-10-

prox i mate cause of pl ai nti f f 's i njuri es . He re, thou gh , pl ai nti f f i s purs ui ng a l eg al mal pra cti ceac ti on agains t t he de fendant t hat re lies on fac t s indep ende nt of t hos e nee ded t o s ust ain a c au se o f ac ti on agains t her ex- hus ban d; sp ec ifically, pla int iff alleg es t hat de fe n dant mi srepresented to plai

ntif f that she was not eli

gible for m ai ntenan ce and f ai le d to in form her that she was

entitled to interim

atto rney fees that would have enab le d

h er to go t o t rial. T hese allegat ions o f negligence aga inst t he de fendant
arei nd ep en dent of any cause of action against the ex-husban d and, if pro ved, are t he proxim

ate cause of her in juries. Accordingly

, as discussed, we reverse the order dism is si ng pl ai ntif f' s legal ma lpractice action against the defendan t, and reman

d for further pr oceedings. In the sam e order dism

is si ng pl ai ntif f' s legal ma lpractice action, the trial

court al so dism

is sed plaint iff 's cou nte rcl ai m i n d ef en da nt' s b rea ch of co nt r ac t ac t io n. T ha t co un t er cla im la rgely mi rrored pla in tif f' s compl ai nt for l egal

ma lpractice, as it si

mi la rly alle ged that defen

dant had f ai le d to engage in thoro ugh di scovery

of the ex-h

usban d's f in anci al as sets, f ai l ed to i n f orm pl ai n ti f f of h er ri gh t to seek int er im attorn ey f ee s, a nd f ai l ed to a dvise he r that she was el igi ble for revi

ewabl e m ai ntenan ce. Ap pa r en t ly

fi ndi ng that judi

ci al estoppel appl

i ed, t he t r ial c o ur t dis miss ed pla int iff's co un t er cla im; pla int iff filed a t imely

app eal t her efro m. Fo r t he sa me rea so ns discu ssed abo ve r ega rd ing plaint iff 's le gal ma lpractice action, the trial

court erred in

dis mi ssi ng pl ai ntif f' s count erc l ai

m on th e b as i s of judi ci al es t o pp el. Accordin

gly , we re ver se t he o rd er dismissing plaint iff 's co unt er claim and re mand for further pro ceedings. Reversed a

nd rem anded. TULL Y an d O' MA RA FR OSSA RD, J J.' s con cur.