Court Opinion

ID: 9718870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:36:38.06434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:24.146830
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINON ON DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REHEARING Mr. JUSTICE DEMPSEY delivered the opinion of the court: The City of Chicago has petitioned for a rehearing. It contends that in weighing the evidence we failed to consider certain facts adduced at the trial. Specifically, it is claimed that Stirs, who took title on February 9, 1971, knew or should have known of the City’s demolition suit because the action was recorded in the tract book of the Chicago Title and Trust Company on January 26, and because a published notice of the suit appeared in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin on February 10. The City argues that the building’s demolition was thus an avoidable consequence of its failure to serve Stirs in the action (as it was required to do by statute), and therefore Stirs’ loss was more the result of its own negligence than the City’s. No mention of these facts was made in the City’s brief, which was addressed only to the issues discussed in the court’s opinion. And the City’s theory of avoidable consequences was neither advanced in the brief nor articulated before the trial court. The central issue on appeal was whether the trial court’s finding was supported by the evidence; in such circumstances, of course, an appellate court may search the record to affirm the judgment. But we do not think it appropriate to do so at this late date. Before the probative value of the professed evidence could be properly weighed, it would be necessary to analyze unbriefed questions of law, such as: Is publication in the Law Bulletin sufficient notice to a party who is entited to personal service, when no showing has been made of diligent search? Is a party in the position of Stirs obliged to take notice of a filing in an unofficial record such as the Title and Trust Company’s tract book?  Moreover, the doctrine of collateral estoppel forecloses the City from relying on the purported facts. This action was initially brought in the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court where an order, entered on August 10, 1972, removed the City’s demolition lien and found that the plaintiff’s building had been wrongfully demolished. In the order the court found “in favor of the plaintiff with respect to all allegations of Count I of the complaint herein.” Included among tiróse allegations were the following: “[Pjlaintiff was neither named as a defendant in said action nor in any other way made a party or notified of said action. Plaintiff had no notice of and was unaware of the aforementioned demolition action until after the property was wrongfully demolished # * s.” The City made no attempt to appeal the chancellor’s order. The requested rehearing is denied. Denied. McNAMARA, P. J., and McGLOON, J., concur.