Illinois Supreme Court

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil case Russell v. SNFA and the criminal cases People v. Domagala, People v. Martinez, People v. Lloyd and People v. Colyar.

CIVIL

Russell v. SNFA

By Alyssa M. Reiter, Williams, Montgomery & John Ltd.

This helicopter-crash case provoked two important long-arm-jurisdiction issues: whether due process protection under the Illinois long-arm statute is greater than federal due process protectionsand whether to apply a narrow or broad version of the stream-of-commerce theory.

Defendant SNFA manufactured a custom tail-rotor bearing in France used in a helicopter manufactured by an Italian company. That manufacturer’s wholly-owned subsidiary located in Pennsylvania sells defendant-produced parts and sells helicopters incorporating defendant’s parts. SNFA knew that the manufacturer incorporated its products into its helicopters for sale in America but did not know the final destination.

SNFA does not have any direct United States customers for its custom-made helicopter parts. SNFA does not have any offices, property, assets or employees in Illinois.

Since 1997, SNFA has sold aerospace bearings to a company located in Rockford. Those bearings are a different model and type from those involved in this case. 

A helicopter containing an SNFA part crashed in Illinois.

The Illinois Supreme Court announced Monday the applicable dates for new rules aimed at mitigating abuses and uncertainty in mortgage foreclosures, and helping those who face the loss of their homes by imposing several requirements on mediation programs and lenders seeking to foreclosure.

The rules were announced February 22, and their effective date is May 1.

However, under amendments filed on Monday Supreme Court Rule 114, which requires a lender to attest that the lender has complied with the requirements of any applicable loss mitigation program, will apply to all judgments on or after the May 1 effective date of the rule no matter the foreclosure filing date.

"Because the affidavit (required under Rule 114) must be filed prior to the entry of a foreclosure judgement, the effective date requires application to any case where a judgment of foreclosure has not yet been entered," state amended comments to Rule 114. "Thus, although a case may already have been filed prior to the effective date (May 1) of Rule 114, the Rule would apply if a judgment of foreclosure has not yet been entered."

Supreme Court Rule 113, which establishes practices and procedures in mortgage foreclosure cases, was amended to make clear that it applies only to those foreclosure actions filed on or after the effective date of May 1, 2013.

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil case In re Estate of Boyar and the criminal cases People v. Fitzpatrick, People v. Le Mirage, Inc. and People v. Hunter.

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Friday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Ferguson v. Patton, Julie Q. v. the Department of Children and Family Services and DeHart v. DeHart and the criminal cases People v. Cruz and People v. Donelson.

CIVIL

DeHart v. DeHart

By Michael T. Reagan, Law Offices of Michael T. Reagan, Ottawa

For more than 50 years plaintiff believed his decedent father’s representation that the decedent was plaintiff’s biological father. Plaintiff found to the contrary when he obtained a certified copy of his birth certificate to obtain a passport, which revealed who his biological father was. That man had abandoned the plaintiff when he was two, and had no further contact. Decedent married plaintiff’s mother, and for more than 60 years held plaintiff out to everyone as his biological son. 

Plaintiff’s mother died in April 2001. In 2005, decedent, then 83, married defendant, 29 years his junior. Three hundred sixty-four days later, decedent executed a new will in which he stated “I have no children.” A prior will provided bequests for plaintiff and plaintiff’s children. 

Legal suspense builds throughout this Opinion as the court methodically works through the six counts of the complaint which had been dismissed by the circuit court, knowing that what lies at the end will be the court’s treatment of the theories for “contract for adoption” and “equitable adoption.” The appellate court, which had reversed the circuit court’s dismissal of all counts, was affirmed in the entirety.