Court Opinion

ID: 9861164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:47:51.523369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:27:25.710473
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McLAREN, specially concurring: I specially concur because I wish to emphasize a point that the majority decision does not address but that was raised below, ruled upon by the court below, and simplistieally disposed of by the cause and this appeal. The appellant received a payment based upon its lien claim but strenuously argues that another lien claimant is not entitled to such a distribution. The appellant’s brief states that the distribution was invalid because the pertinent statute does not authorize such a distribution. The trial court considered the argument, recognized the patent inconsistency, and suggested that the appellant should return the distributed funds. The appellant refused and continues to claim that not only is the refusal not a waiver but that the position is not inconsistent. The argument of the appellant seems to be that there was an agreement between the parties to distribute the funds to it prior to the appearance of the appellee in the proceedings. The appellant does not cite any authority that allows a distribution, in violation of the controlling statute, merely because the parties agreed to “disregard” the statute. The trial court called this patent inconsistency a waiver. I submit it is called judicial estoppel. Judicial estoppel provides that, when a party assumes a particular position in a legal proceeding, that party is estopped from asserting a contrary position in a subsequent proceeding. The doctrine applies only when the following elements are established: (1) two positions have been taken by the same party; (2) the positions were taken in separate or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party intended that the trier of fact accept the truth of the facts alleged in support of the positions; (4) the party was successful in asserting the first position and received some benefit in the first proceeding; and (5) the two positions were inconsistent. People v. Coffin, 305 Ill. App. 3d 595, 598 (1999). All of the elements are present in this case. Regarding the second element, the requirement that the positions be taken in different proceedings is to provide finality to the position taken in the first proceeding. Appellant’s rationalization regarding its different positions is that the parties agreed to the distribution. Without the appellée’s participation, this argument effectively bifurcates this proceeding into two proceedings, namely, the “pre” and “post” appearances by the appellee. This attempt to hide the patent inconsistency, if the proceeding was considered one proceeding, is not ameliorated by attempting to claim that there are essentially two proceedings: one with an agreement and one without an agreement. Although I agree with the majority opinion, I feel that the patent deficiency of the appellant’s inconsistent position is also dispositive.