Opinion ID: 2142011
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Malpractice Action

Text: Plaintiffs' cause of action for legal malpractice stems from defendants' preparation, on October 23, 1992, of the last will and testament of Lawrence A. Perlstein, Deena Perlstein's husband. Generally, plaintiffs alleged that defendants negligently prepared the will, thereby preventing the Lawrence A. Perlstein Trust from disbursing $300,000 to Scott Schneider, Deena Perlstein's son, and causing other damages. Lawrence Perlstein died on September 23, 1995. On October 16, 1995, the circuit court of Lake County admitted the will to probate and issued letters of office to Deena Perlstein. On January 8, 1996, the attorneys for the trustees of the Lawrence A. Perlstein Trust rendered an opinion that the trustees should not fund the trust on the ground that Lawrence Perlstein had not properly exercised the power of appointment in his will. On January 26, 1996, the trustees notified Deena Perlstein that the trust would not be funded. At the time Deena Perlstein learned that her late husband's trust would not be funded, the changes wrought by Public Act 89-7 had been on the statute books for almost a year. As noted above, following the passage of Public Act 89-7, a two-year limitations period and a six-year repose period appliedwithout exceptionto all attorney malpractice actions. See 735 ILCS 5/13-214.3(b), (c) (West 1996). According to defendants, the two-year limitations period would have expired, at the latest, on January 26, 1998 (two years from the date Deena Perlstein purportedly had knowledge that the trust would not be funded), and the six-year repose period would have expired October 23, 1998 (six years after the date defendants prepared the will). Plaintiffs filed their legal malpractice action in the circuit court of Cook County on January 8, 1998, clearly within the limitations and repose periods. [1] Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, arguing that it was time-barred. See 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(5) (West 2002). According to defendants, because Best declared Public Act 89-7 unconstitutional, the act was void ab initio. In effect, Public Act 89-7 never was. Thus, defendants argued that the exception to the statute of repose set forth in section 13-214.3(d), which Public Act 89-7 sought to remove, never ceased to have validity. Under subsection (d), plaintiffs cause of action should have been commenced within the time for filing claims against the estate or a petition contesting the validity of the will of the deceased person, whichever is later. 735 ILCS 5/13-214.3(d) (West 1994). In this case, the later date was the claims-filing date: April 26, 1996. See 755 ILCS 5/18-3 (West 1996). In defendants' view, plaintiffs' complaint, filed January 8, 1998, was 20 months late. Plaintiffs countered that the void ab initio doctrine does not govern this case. Plaintiffs relied on Illinois case law holding that where a legislative change in a statute of repose would otherwise instantaneously bar a plaintiff's cause of action, the plaintiff will be allowed a reasonable period of time in which to file its cause of action. See, e.g., Moore v. Jackson Park Hospital, 95 Ill.2d 223, 69 Ill.Dec. 191, 447 N.E.2d 408 (1983); Goodman v. Harbor Market, Ltd., 278 Ill.App.3d 684, 215 Ill.Dec. 263, 663 N.E.2d 13 (1995). Plaintiffs posited that the result should be no different where the change in the statute of repose results from a judicial decision, rather than legislative action. Thus, plaintiffs argued that their complaint, filed just three weeks following this court's decision in Best, was filed within a reasonable period of time following the change in the law. The circuit court acknowledged that the result might be harsh, but nonetheless applied the void ab initio doctrine and dismissed plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice. The appellate court reversed, holding that such a result would be fundamentally unfair. The appellate court found that the filing of plaintiffs' complaint, just three weeks after the Best decision, was within a reasonable period of time after the change in the repose period for malpractice actions and that the complaint was not time-barred. 349 Ill.App.3d at 169-70, 284 Ill. Dec. 808, 810 N.E.2d 598. The appellate court remanded the cause for additional proceedings. 349 Ill.App.3d at 171, 284 Ill.Dec. 808, 810 N.E.2d 598. This appeal followed.