Hachem v. Chi. Title Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 December 2015
• Docket Number: No. 1–14–3188.,1–14–3188.
• Citation: 46 N.E.3d 879
• Parties: Sanaa HACHEM and Chicago Title Land Trust Company, a Corporation of Illinois, as Trustee Under the Provisions of Land Trust Agreement dated 8/9/2012, Known as Trust Number 8002360019, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY; Christopher Weinum; Steven Wolfe; and Cheryl Wolfe, Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

46 N.E.3d 879

Sanaa HACHEM and Chicago Title Land Trust Company, a Corporation of Illinois, as Trustee Under the Provisions of Land Trust Agreement dated 8/9/2012, Known as Trust Number 8002360019, Plaintiffs–Appellants

v.CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY; Christopher Weinum; Steven Wolfe; and Cheryl Wolfe, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 1–14–3188.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division.

Dec. 14, 2015.

Law Office of Thomas Herz, Jr., Chicago (Thomas G.A. Herz, Jr., of counsel), for appellants.

Cohen Rosenson & Zuckerman LLC, Chicago (Arthur E. Rosenson, of counsel), for appellees Steven Wolfe and Cheryl Wolfe.

Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Chicago (William T. Eveland, David A. Golin, and Hal R. Morris, of counsel), for other appellees.

OPINION

Justice HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 On May 21, 2012, plaintiff Hachem entered into a real estate contract for the purchase of a residence located at 10353 S. Seeley Ave. in Chicago. After completing the purchase, plaintiff Hachem searched the Cook County Recorder of Deeds and discovered that the property was part of the Longwood Drive historical district. The ordinance designating the property as a landmark was recorded in January 1982. Subsequently, plaintiffs made a claim with defendant Chicago Title Insurance Company on the belief that the ordinance represented an encumbrance on the title. Chicago Title denied the claim, and plaintiffs brought suit against Chicago Title, the agent who issued the policy, and the sellers of the house. Both sets of defendants filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Section 2–615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2–615 (West 2012) ), which, after briefing, the circuit court granted. Plaintiff brought motions to reconsider the dismissal of all defendants and additionally sought leave to file an amended complaint. The circuit court denied those motions. Plaintiffs timely appealed.

¶ 2 Before this court plaintiffs raise the following issues: (1) whether the circuit court erred in denying plaintiffs' oral motion to amend their complaint as it pertained to the Chicago Title defendants; (2) whether the circuit court erred in granting the Wolfe defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice; (3) whether the circuit court erred when it denied plaintiffs' oral motion to amend their complaint as it pertained to the Wolfe defendants; and (4) whether the circuit court erred in denying plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider and Motion to Amend Pleading. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the circuit court's rulings in all respects.

¶ 3 JURISDICTION

¶ 4 The circuit court dismissed defendants Chicago Title Insurance Company and Christopher Weinum on December 12, 2013. The circuit court dismissed defendants Steven and Cheryl Wolfe on May 7, 2014. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider both dismissals on June 6, 2014. At the same time Plaintiff also filed a Motion To Amend Complaint against all defendants. The circuit court denied the Motion to Reconsider and Amend as to Chicago Title and Weinum on June 23, 2014. The circuit court denied the Motion to Reconsider and Amend as to Steven and Cheryl Wolfe on September 17, 2014. Plaintiffs timely filed a Notice of Appeal on October 16, 2014. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994) and Rule 303 (eff. May 30, 2008).

¶ 5 BACKGROUND

¶ 6 On June 13, 2013, plaintiffs-appellants, Sanaa Hachem and Chicago Title Land Trust Company, as trustee under the provisions of a land trust agreement dated August 9, 2012, known as trust number 8002360019 (hereinafter plaintiffs), filed their complaint against defendants-appellees, Chicago Title Insurance Company, Christopher Weinum, Steven Wolfe and Cheryl Wolfe stemming from the sale of property located 10353 S. Seeley Ave., Chicago. Count I of the complaint was directed at defendants Chicago Title Insurance Company and Weinum (hereinafter Chicago Title defendants) and alleged Breach of Owners Policy of Title Insurance, while count II was directed at Steven and Cheryl Wolfe (hereinafter Wolfe defendants) and was not captioned. Attached to the complaint were the insurance policy issued by the Chicago Title defendants, the sale agreement between plaintiffs and the Wolfe defendants, and a copy of the landmark ordinance that was recorded with the title in January 1982.

¶ 7 Prior to the filing of the lawsuit, appellant entered into a contract for the purchase of property located at 10353 S. Seeley Ave, Chicago. As part of the sale, the Wolfe defendants agreed to provide commitment for title insurance. Pursuant to this agreement, the Wolfe defendants purchased title insurance from the Chicago Title defendants. On August, 20, 2012, the Wolfe defendants conveyed 10353 S. Seeley to the plaintiffs. Sometime after the transfer of the property, plaintiffs searched the Cook County Recorder of Deeds and discovered that the property was located within the Longwood Drive District and subject to Chicago's ordinance concerning landmark properties. The ordinance had been recorded with the title on January 20, 1982.

¶ 8 Thereafter, plaintiff Hachem filed a claim with Chicago Title based on the policy obtained by the Wolfe defendants. Plaintiff Hachem alleged that the landmark designation represented an encumbrance on the title. Chicago Title denied coverage. It stated that plaintiff Hachem was not an insured as defined by the policy nor was the matter presented covered by the policy. After the denial of coverage, plaintiffs brought this lawsuit.

¶ 9 On August 9, 2013, Chicago Title defendants moved to dismiss count I pursuant to Section 2–615 (735 ILCS 5/2–615 (West 2012) ). After briefing, on December 12, 2013, the circuit court dismissed count I against the Chicago Title defendants with prejudice. The court found that based on the policy language of the insurance agreement, plaintiffs' claim was excluded from coverage. At the same hearing, plaintiffs made an oral motion to amend their complaint, but it was denied.

¶ 10 On January, 13, 2014, appellants filed a motion to amend their complaint. However, the motion lacked a proposed amended complaint and was never noticed up before the circuit court.

¶ 11 On February 13, 2014, the Wolfe defendants moved to dismiss count II pursuant to Section 2–615. Id. After briefing, on May 7, 2014, the court granted the Wolfe defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice. Again, plaintiffs made an oral motion to amend their complaint but it was denied.

¶ 12 On June 6, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion captioned “Plaintiff's Combined 5/2–1203 Motion for Reconsideration and 5/2–616 Motion to Amend Complaint.” (735 ILCS 5/2–1203, 2–616 (West 2012)). Plaintiffs' motion was heard on June 23, 2014. The Wolfe defendants requested and were granted an opportunity to file a written response. The Chicago Title defendants asked that the court deny the motion without them filing a response. The circuit court admonished plaintiff for failing to provide courtesy copies of the motion to the court. The court then denied the plaintiffs' motion as it related to the Chicago Title defendants. On September 17, 2014, after briefing, the court denied plaintiffs' motion as it related to the Wolfe defendants.

¶ 13 Plaintiffs timely filed a Notice of Appeal on October 16, 2014, which was later corrected via an amended Notice.

¶ 14 ANALYSIS

¶ 15 Plaintiffs raise the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the circuit court erred in denying plaintiffs' oral motion to amend their complaint as it pertained to the Chicago Title defendants; (2) whether the circuit court erred in granting the Wolfe defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice; (3) whether the circuit court erred when it denied plaintiffs' oral motion to amend their complaint as it pertained to the Wolfe defendants; and (4) whether the circuit court erred in denying plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider and Motion to Amend Pleading.¹ For the following reasons we affirm the rulings of the circuit court.

¶ 16 First, plaintiffs challenge the circuit court's order denying their oral motion to amend their complaint against the Chicago Title defendants. “Whether to allow an amendment of a complaint is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and, absent an abuse of discretion, the court's determination will not be overturned on review.” Village of Wadsworth v. Kerton, 311 Ill.App.3d 829, 842, 244 Ill.Dec. 560, 726 N.E.2d 156 (2000). “An abuse of discretion will be found only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.” Keefe–Shea Joint Venture v. City of Evanston, 364 Ill.App.3d 48, 61, 300 Ill.Dec. 800, 845 N.E.2d 689 (2005).

¶ 17 Section 2–616(a) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2–616(a) (West 2014)) provides that at any time before final judgment, the court may permit amendments on just and reasonable terms to enable the plaintiff to sustain the claim brought in the suit. Given the broad discretion a trial court exercises in ruling on motions to amend pleadings prior to final judgment, a court should not find that the denial of a motion to amend is prejudicial unless there has been a manifest abuse of discretion. Loyola Academy v. S & S Roof Maintenance, Inc., 146 Ill.2d 263, 273–74, 166 Ill.Dec. 882, 586 N.E.2d 1211 (1992). In considering whether a circuit court abused its discretion in ruling on a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, the reviewing court considers the following factors: “(1) whether the proposed amendment would cure the defective pleading; (2) whether other parties would sustain prejudice or surprise by virtue of the proposed amendment; (3) whether the proposed amendment is timely; and (4) whether previous opportunities to amend the pleading could be identified.” Id. 273–74, 166 Ill.Dec. 882, 586 N.E.2d 1211.

¶ 18 The above factors apply to amendments proposed prior to final judgments. After final judgment, pleadings may be amended to conform the pleadings to the proof....