ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS

Appellate Court

In re Estate of McFadden, 2011 IL App (2d) 101157

Appellate Court

Caption

In re ESTATE OF IAN A.F. McFADDEN, a Minor (Tara Fuller, as

Guardian of the Estate, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Kim MacCloskey and

Associates, Respondent-Appellant).

 District & No. Second District

Docket No. 2-10-1157

Filed December 30, 2011

Held

(Note: This syllabus

constitutes no part of

the opinion of the court

but has been prepared

by the Reporter of

Decisions for the

convenience of the

reader.)

In an action to adjudicate respondent attorney’s lien for representing

petitioner’s son in a personal injury action, the trial court’s judgment

granting petitioner’s request to adjudicate the lien to zero was affirmed,

even though the trial court erred in finding the lien invalid, since the

minor’s father, purporting to act as next friend of his son, retained

respondent’s services to pursue the tort action, but the father had been

divorced from petitioner for several years, did not have custody and was

substantially behind in child support and, therefore, lacked the ability to

assert a claim for his son, and although that disqualification did not

invalidate respondent’s lien, anywork respondent did after being notified

that petitioner was the appropriate party to act for the minor was done at

respondent’s own peril, respondent’s decision to continue working was

not reasonable, and in the absence of evidence of the work done, no

compensation was warranted.

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Winnebago County, No. 07-P-362; the

Hon. Lisa Fabiano, Judge, presiding.
Judgment Affirmed.

Counsel on

Appeal

Mary I. Wood, of Kim MacCloskey & Associates, LLP, of Rockford, for

appellant.

Scott A. Calkins and Arthur G. Kielty, both of Reno & Zahm LLP, for

appellee.

Panel JUSTICE HUTCHINSON delivered the judgment of the court, with

opinion.

Justice Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion.

Justice Schostok specially concurred, with opinion.

OPINION

¶ 1 Respondent, the law firm of Kim MacCloskey & Associates, appeals the trial court’s

judgment that adjudicated respondent’s attorney’s lien to zero and extinguished respondent’s

claim for attorney fees pursuant to case law and the Attorneys Lien Act (the Act). 770 ILCS

5/1 (West 2006). Respondent contends that the trial court erred in interpreting the Act and

abused its discretion when it determined that, pursuant to a quantum meruit theory,

respondent was not entitled to attorney fees. We affirm.

¶ 2 This matter stems from personal injury litigation on behalf of Ian A.F. McFadden, a

minor child, whose parents divorced five years prior to the child’s injury. On February 13,

2003, petitioner, Tara Fuller, and James McFadden (James) obtained a judgment for

dissolution of marriage. Petitioner was awarded full custody of the couple’s two children,

James Jr. and Ian. As of March 1, 2003, James was ordered to pay $367 per month in child

support for the benefit of the children.

¶ 3 From March 1, 2003, through April 30, 2007, James was unemployed and failed to

satisfy his child support obligations. On July 18, 2007, the trial court entered an orderfinding

that James was $21,671.75 in arrears on his child support obligations and it issued a warrant

for his arrest.

¶ 4 One month later, on August 21, 2007, 10-year-old Ian sustained a broken arm and

multiple skull fractures after being struck by a tree limb that fell during tree removal

operations performed by Tree Care Enterprises, an agent employed by the City of Rockford.

On September 4, 2007, James, purporting to act in his capacity as Ian’s father and next

friend, retained the services of respondent to pursue a tort action relating to Ian’s injuries.

-2-
¶ 5 On September 5, 2007, respondent sent notices of attorney’s liens by certified mail to

Tree Care Enterprises and the City of Rockford. The notices provided, in relevant part:

“[Y]ou are hereby notified that James McFadden on behalf of his minor son, Ian

McFadden, has placed in my hands, as his attorney, for suit and collection, a claim,

demand or cause of action, against you growing out of personal injuries he sustained on

or about August 21, 2007, as a result of negligence or other conduct. James McFadden

has agreed to pay me for such services ***.”

Thereafter, respondent alleges, it performed legal research regarding strict liability based on

ultrahazardous activities.

¶ 6 On September 5, 2007, petitioner, also purporting to act in her capacity as Ian’s parent

and next friend, retained attorney Anthony Kielty (petitioner’s attorney) of the Law Office

of Reno & Zahm, LLP, to pursue a personal injury action on Ian’s behalf. On September 6,

2007, petitioner’s attorney filed on petitioner’s behalf a petition for guardianship of a minor,

seeking to have petitioner appointed as guardian of the estate and person of Ian for the

purpose of prosecuting Ian’s personal injury claim.

¶ 7 That same day, September 6, 2007, respondent filed a complaint in the trial court on

behalf of James, both individually and as next friend of Ian. The complaint alleged against

Tree Care Enterprises and the City of Rockford negligence, res ipsa loquitur, strict liability,

and counts under the family expense provision of the Rights of Married Persons Act (750

ILCS 65/15 (West 2006)).

¶ 8 Also on September 6, 2007, after respondent filed the complaint, petitioner’s attorney

notified respondent by letter that he had been retained to represent petitioner and Ian, and he

asserted petitioner’s right to act as Ian’s representative. The letter further informed

respondent that petitioner had filed a petition for guardianship, that James was not the

custodial parent of Ian, that James was substantially in arrears on his court-ordered child

support obligations for Ian’s benefit, and that a warrant had been issued for James’s arrest

in connection with his child support arrearage. The letter directed respondent to take no

further action with respect to Ian’s personal injury action.

¶ 9 Respondent verified the information alleged in the letter and spoke with James regarding

the need to remedy the situation. Respondent provided James with the names and contact

information of several attorneys who could offer James advice regarding his child support

arrearage.

¶ 10 According to respondent’s brief, sometime between September 10, 2007, and September

17, 2007, respondent drafted and mailed preliminary written discovery questions and

performed research and investigation to obtain telephone numbers and addresses for the

witnesses listed in James’s discovery answers. Respondent obtained Ian’s emergency room

records, photographs of the injury scene, photographs of Ian during his hospital stay, and

photographs of Ian after discharge. Respondent created maps of the scene, correlated to the

photographs. Respondent also procured and redacted a deposition transcript from its closed

files regarding a similar case against Tree Care Enterprises.

¶ 11 On September 17, 2007, the trial court appointed petitioner as guardian of Ian’s estate

for the express purpose of pursuing all claims that Ian might have as a result of the personal

-3-
injuries he sustained on August 21, 2007. On September 19, 2007, the trial court granted

respondent’s request to withdraw as counsel. On October 15, 2007, the trial court entered an

order substituting petitioner’s attorney in place of respondent in Ian’s personal injury case.

After respondent withdrew from the case, it assembled all of its work product and provided

the information to petitioner’s attorney.

¶ 12 Thereafter, petitioner’s attorney twice amended the complaint in Ian’s personal injury

case and prosecuted the matter through its conclusion. On October 4, 2010, petitioner filed

a petition to adjudicate respondent’s attorney’s lien claim. On October 15, 2010, the trial

court entered an order to settle Ian’s personal injury case for $800,000. On November 5,

2010, the trial court determined that respondent’s lien claim was invalid and granted

petitioner’s request to adjudicate respondent’s attorney’s lien to zero and extinguish

respondent’s claim for attorney fees. Respondent timely appealed.

¶ 13 We first address respondent’s motion to strike petitioner’s brief. Respondent argues that

we should strike petitioner’s brief, because its facts section is argumentative. See Beitner v.

Marzahl, 354 Ill. App. 3d 142, 145-46 (2004) (argumentative language within the statement

of facts is inappropriate and against the mandate of the supreme court rules). As respondent’s

motion points out, briefs that violate the aforementioned rules may be stricken in whole or

in part, or offending portions of such briefs may be disregarded. Id. at 146. Thus, as we will

disregard any argumentative portions of petitioner’s brief, there is no need to strike the brief.

We therefore deny respondent’s motion.

¶ 14 At issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred when it found that respondent’s

attorney’s lien claim was invalid, adjudicated respondent’s attorney’s lien to zero, and

extinguished respondent’s claim for attorney fees. Respondent argues that (1) the trial court

erred in adjudicating respondent’s attorney’s lien to zero and extinguishing respondent’s

claim for attorney fees pursuant to the Act and (2) the trial court abused its discretion when

it determined that, pursuant to a quantum meruit theory, respondent was not entitled to

attorney fees. Petitioner responds that the trial court correctly adjudicated respondent’s

attorney’s lien to zero and extinguished the claim, because James did not have standing to

sue on Ian’s behalf.

¶ 15 Respondent’s first argument is that the trial court erred in adjudicating respondent’s

attorney’s lien to zero and extinguishing respondent’s claim for attorney fees pursuant to the

Act. Specifically, respondent argues that it strictly complied with all the requirements of the

Act and thus has a valid lien. Petitioner responds that, because James did not have standing

to sue on Ian’s behalf, pursuant to the language of the Act, respondent could not meet its

requirements. As to the construction of the Act, our review is de novo. Solon v. Midwest

Medical Records Ass’n, 236 Ill. 2d 433, 439 (2010).

¶ 16 The Act provides:

“§ 1. Attorneys at law shall have a lien upon all claims, demands and causes of

action, including all claims for unliquidated damages, which maybe placed in their hands

by their clients for suit or collection, or upon which suit or action has been instituted, for

the amount of any fee which may have been agreed upon by and between such attorneys

and their clients, or, in the absence of such agreement, for a reasonable fee, for the

-4-
services of such suits, claims, demands or causes of action, plus costs and expenses. In

the case of a claim, demand, or cause of action with respect to which the total amount of

all liens under the Health Care Services Lien Act meets or exceeds 40% of the sum paid

or due the injured person, the total amount of all liens under this Act shall not exceed

30% of the sum paid or due the injured person. All attorneys shall share proportionate

amounts within this statutory limitation. If an appeal is taken by any party to a suit based

on the claim or cause of action, however, the attorney’s lien shall not be affected or

limited by the provisions of this Act.

To enforce such a lien, such attorneys shall serve notice in writing, which service

may be made by registered or certified mail, upon the party against whom their clients

may have such suits, claims or causes of action, claiming such lien and stating therein the

interest they have in such suits, claims, demands or causes of action. Such lien shall

attach to any verdict, judgment or order entered and to anymoney or property which may

be recovered, on account of such suits, claims, demands or causes of action, from and

after the time of service of the notice. On petition filed by such attorneys or their clients

any court of competent jurisdiction shall, on not less than 5 days’ notice to the adverse

party, adjudicate the rights of the parties and enforce the lien.” 770 ILCS 5/1 (West

2006).

¶ 17 The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of

the legislature. Solon, 236 Ill. 2d at 440. The best indicator of legislative intent is the

language of the statute, which is given its plain and ordinarymeaning. Id. When the statutory

language is clear and unambiguous, it must be applied as written. Id. In interpreting statutory

language, courts will not read into it exceptions, limitations, or conditions that are absent

from the plain language of the law. Id. at 441. These general principles regarding statutory

interpretation apply to the Act, which “must be strictly construed, both as to establishing the

lien and as to the right of action for its enforcement.” People v. Philip Morris, Inc., 198 Ill.

2d 87, 95 (2001).

¶ 18 In the current matter, respondent argues that it met the three general requirements for a

valid attorney’s lien. Specifically, respondent asserts that James placed a cause of action in

the hands of respondent, that written notice of the lien was provided to the opposing parties,

and that such written notice was sent by certified mail. See 770 ILCS 5/1 (West 2006).

Petitioner counters that respondent failed to meet the requirements of the Act because

respondent was not hired by a client with an ability to assert a claim. Specifically, petitioner

argues that the attorney asserting the lien must perfect the lien by serving written notice upon

the party against whom the client has a claim. See 770 ILCS 5/1 (West 2006); see also Philip

Morris, Inc., 198 Ill. 2d at 95 (citing Rhoades v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 78 Ill. 2d 217,

227 (1979)). According to petitioner, as James was not the guardian of Ian’s estate, he had

no cause of action against the opposing parties in Ian’s personal injury case, and thus

respondent could not perfect the lien by serving notice on Tree Care Enterprises and the City

of Rockford.

¶ 19 We determine that respondent met the requirements of the Act pursuant to a strict

construction of its language. Respondent was hired by James, who placed a cause of action,

namely, Ian’s personal injury suit, in respondent’s hands. Taylor, 375 Ill. App. 3d at 501.

-5-
Respondent sent notice of the lien to the opposing parties by certified mail. Although

petitioner argues that, because James was later found unauthorized to sue on Ian’s behalf,

respondent failed to perfect the lien because it did not serve written notice of the lien upon

the “party against whom the client has a claim,” the language of the Act does not support

petitioner’s claim. Instead, the Act provides:

“To enforce such a lien, such attorneys shall serve notice in writing, which service

may be made by registered or certified mail, upon the party against whom their clients

may have such suits, claims or causes of action, claiming such lien and stating therein the

interest they have in such suits, claims, demands or causes of action.” (Emphasis added.)

770 ILCS 5/1 (West 2006).

While James was later found without standing to assert a personal injury claim on behalf of

Ian, the language of the Act does not make a distinction between a client who has a bona fide

claim and a client who mistakenly believes that he or she has a claim. To the contrary, the

language of the Act states that “service may be made by registered or certified mail, upon the

party against whom their clients may have” a claim. (Emphasis added.) Id. Thus, pursuant

to the language of the Act, respondent’s lien is valid.

¶ 20 Petitioner next asserts that, because respondent was not hired by Ian, the act of filing a

notice of lien was insufficient to create a lien under the Act. See In re Chicago Flood

Litigation, 289 Ill. App. 3d 937, 943 (1997). Citing case law from the 1940s, petitioner

contends that a minor maymake a valid contract by himself or through his next friend to hire

an attorney to prosecute a lawsuit and may agree to pay reasonable compensation. Yellen v.

Bloom, 326 Ill. App. 134, 142 (1945); Goldberg v. Permutter, 308 Ill. App. 84, 87 (1941).

However, according to petitioner, because James was unauthorized to act as Ian’s next friend,

any contract entered into between James and respondent is void ab initio. Illinois State Bar

Ass’n Mutual Insurance Co. v. Coregis Insurance Co., 355 Ill. App. 3d 156, 164 (2004).

¶ 21 Petitioner further asserts that, due to a conflict of interest, James could not pursue any

claim on Ian’s behalf. Petitioner asserts that, because James failed to pay his child support

for Ian, James was prevented, as a matter of law, from suing on Ian’s behalf. As Ian is a

minor, he was legally unable to enter into a contract that could be enforced against him and

he could not bring a lawsuit in his own name. See Severs v. Country Mutual Insurance Co.,

89 Ill. 2d 515, 520 (1982). With respect to the injuries Ian suffered on August 21, 2007, he

could pursue litigation only through a guardian ad litem or “next friend.” Doe v. Montessori

School of Lake Forest, 287 Ill. App. 3d 289, 298 (1997).

¶ 22 A minor with a meritorious cause of action is not left to the mercy of a self-constituted

next friend to enforce the child’s rights. Severs, 89 Ill. 2d at 520. Rather, in the case of a

parent, the law holds that the parent may sue on behalf of his or her minor child only if it is

in the best interests of the child and the parent does not have interests that conflict with those

of the child. See Stevenson v. Hawthorne Elementary School, East St. Louis School District,

144 Ill. 2d 294, 301 (1991). According to petitioner, for well over 100 years, it has been the

law of this state that a next friend whose interests are hostile to those of his or her ward is

incompetent to act for the ward. Roodhouse v. Roodhouse, 132 Ill. 360 (1890). This “no

conflict” requirement means that a noncustodial parent with a child support arrearage is

-6-
disqualified from serving as his or her minor child’s next friend for purposes of litigating a

tort claim. Stevenson, 144 Ill. 2d at 301-02. The Stevenson court stated:

“[The father] cannot maintain an action as ‘next friend’ of the child and, at the same

time, defend himself against the child judgment-creditor. The conflict of interest is

obvious. In addition, the best interests of the child would not be served by allowing a

parent who is contemptuously delinquent to prosecute a tort claim as ‘next friend.’ ” Id.

¶ 23 Respondent does not dispute that a father who is delinquent in child support payments

cannot act as next friend to pursue a tort claim on behalf of his child. Instead, respondent

argues that Stevenson does not stand for the proposition that an attorneyhired bya delinquent

father is not authorized to file a suit, cannot hold a valid attorney’s lien, and is not entitled

to be compensated for his or her services.

¶ 24 Respondent asserts that this is a question of standing and offers as instructive Dyer v.

Zoning Board of Appeals, 179 Ill. App. 3d 294 (1989). In Dyer, the plaintiff landowners who

filed suit to reverse a zoning determination were found to lack standing to pursue the claim.

Id. at 298-300. The defendants brought a motion for sanctions against the plaintiffs, alleging

that the finding of a lack of standing and the subsequent dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint

indicated that the allegations in the complaint were “baseless and not warranted by existing

law.” Id. at 301. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s holding and determined that the

plaintiffs had a reasonable basis for their argument in favor of standing, despite their ultimate

lack of success. Id. at 302-03. Respondent asserts that Dyer stands for the principle that a

court’s ultimate decision on a party’s standing is not a per se finding that the cause of action

was improper and thus a barrier to recoup fees. Petitioner responds that the case is

inapplicable because, here, the trial court did not sanction respondent.

¶ 25 In the current matter, although the trial court ultimately found that respondent was not

hired by a party with the ability to assert a claim on Ian’s behalf, this does not mean that

respondent’s attorney’s lien was invalid. Assessment of a client’s standing is not a

requirement of the Act. See 770 ILCS 5/1 (West 2006). Instead, attorney’s liens are

invalidated only for failure to strictly follow the plain language of the Act. See Rhoades, 78

Ill. 2d at 227 (holding that an attorney’s lien was invalid because notice of the lien was

served on the adverse party after the attorney was discharged); also see Progressive

Universal Insurance Co. of Illinois v. Taylor, 375 Ill. App. 3d 495, 501 (2007) (holding that

an attorney’s lien was invalid because notice of lien was sent by ordinary mail rather than

registered or certified mail). Petitioner does not offer and we are unable to locate any case

law holding that a client’s eventual disqualification from acting as a next friend invalidates

an attorney’s lien. Thus, we determine that the trial court erred when it determined that

respondent’s lien was invalid.

¶ 26 Respondent’s next contention is that the trial court abused its discretion when it

determined that, pursuant to a quantum meruit theory, respondent was not entitled to attorney

fees. Despite respondent’s contention, the record reflects that the trial court did not reach the

question of whether respondent was entitled to attorney fees pursuant to a quantum meruit

theory. Specifically, in making its determination that respondent’s lien was invalid, the trial

court stated:

-7-
“Ultimately, [respondent] did not have the reason; did not have the ability to bring

the claim, and I don’t think that [respondent] can then have an attorney’s lien when

[respondent] had a client; a contract with a client who had no right to bring the claim.

The quantum meruit I don’t have to get into, so I won’t.”

Thus, we determine that respondent’s second contention is unfounded.

¶ 27 Although we have determined that respondent’s lien was valid pursuant to strict statutory

construction, we note that respondent was on notice that its client might not have been

authorized to bring the personal injury claim on Ian’s behalf as of September 6, 2007, when

respondent received the letter from petitioner’s attorney informing respondent that due to

James’s child support arrearage he was unable to act as next friend to Ian. Respondent’s brief

makes clear that, upon receiving the letter, it verified the information alleged and spoke with

James regarding the need to remedy the situation. Nevertheless, respondent continued

working on Ian’s personal injury claim until September 17, 2007, when the trial court

determined that petitioner was the appropriate party to act as Ian’s next friend.

¶ 28 We determine that any work done by respondent after September 6, 2007, when it

received notice that James was not authorized to file suit on Ian’s behalf, was done at

respondent’s own peril. We will not award fees to respondent for work done after respondent

was aware that James could not pursue the action on Ian’s behalf before paying his child

support arrearage and clearing an outstanding arrest warrant. Although respondent argues

that it continued working on Ian’s case because of the possibility that a court would

eventually find that James was authorized to sue on Ian’s behalf, as respondent’s brief points

out, after it verified the information alleged in the letter, it told James that he would need to

first remedy his child support arrearage. It is clear to this court that respondent, as of

September 6, 2007, was aware that James was not authorized to act as Ian’s next friend and

could not pursue a claim on Ian’s behalf before remedying his child support arrearage. As

James’s arrearage was $21,671.75 and there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest

because of his substantial arrearage, we determine that respondent’s choice to continue

working on Ian’s personal injury matter was not reasonable.

¶ 29 The amount of compensation owed to respondent for work done before it was put on

notice remains undetermined. However, an exhaustive review of the record reflects that

respondent failed to put forth any evidence supporting its assertion that it did work on Ian’s

personal injury claim. The record fails to include time sheets, billing documents, or affidavits

evidencing work conducted by respondent. Respondent’s bare-bones assertion of the work

it claims it performed on Ian’s behalfis, without more, unpersuasive. The record reflects that

respondent’s fee request was not based on the amount of work actually done by respondent,

but instead was based on a percentage of the settlement awarded to Ian. Although we note

respondent’s argument that time sheets are not required in a personal injurymatter where the

client will ultimatelypaya contingent fee, this argument does not excuse respondent’s failure

to evidence its work through affidavit or other means. Because respondent failed to include

in the record any evidence that it performed work on Ian’s personal injury suit, we determine

that respondent is not entitled to any compensation from the ultimate award to Ian. See

Benson v. Stafford, 407 Ill. App. 3d 902, 912 (2010) (holding that the appellate court can

affirm on any basis in the record, regardless whether the trial court relied on that basis or its

-8-
reasoning was correct).

¶ 30 Forthe reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Winnebago County.

¶ 31 Affirmed.

¶ 32 JUSTICE SCHOSTOK, specially concurring:

¶ 33 I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the respondent is not entitled to any

compensation from Ian’s estate. I write separately, however, because I believe that, even if

the respondent had presented detailed evidence as to how much work it had done on Ian’s

personal injury claim between September 4, 2007 (the day that the respondent was retained

by James), and September 6, 2007 (the day that the respondent learned that James was not

a proper party), the respondent would not be entitled to any compensation from Ian’s estate

for that time period.

¶ 34 Supreme court rules should be construed in harmony with applicable statutes whenever

possible. People v. Joseph, 113 Ill. 2d 36, 58 (1986) (Simon, J., dissenting). Illinois Supreme

Court Rule 137 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994) provides in pertinent part:

“Every pleading, motion and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall

be signed by at least one attorney of record in his individual name, whose address shall

be stated. *** The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that

he has read the pleading, motion or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge,

information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is

warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or

reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as

to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.”

¶ 35 Reading the Act in conjunction with Rule 137, I believe that, before the respondent

purportedly did any work on Ian’s behalf and sent its notice of lien, the respondent was

required to do a reasonable inquiry as to James’s right and ability to prosecute an action on

Ian’s behalf. Such a reasonable inquiry would have disclosed that (1) James and the

petitioner were divorced; (2) James was not Ian’s custodial parent; and (3) James was

delinquent in paying child support. Upon learning this, the respondent should have realized

that James had no right to prosecute an action on Ian’s behalf (see Stevenson, 144 Ill. 2d at

301-02), and thus no valid cause of action had been placed in the respondent’s hands by

James. As no attorney fees would have been incurred on Ian’s behalf had the respondent

done a reasonable inquiry, the respondent should not be entitled to any compensation under

the Act for work it might have done from September 4 to September 6, 2007. I would

therefore affirm for the reasons stated by the trial court.

-9-