Patton v. Biswell
| Decision Date | 13 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 4-20-0187 |
| Parties | MARIE PATTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHRISTIAN BISWELL, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County No. 15L252 Honorable Adam Giganti, Judge Presiding.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding the trial court had jurisdiction to hear defendant's motion for declaratory relief; the trial court did not err in denying plaintiffs petition to substitute the judge for cause; but the trial court did err in declaring defendant fully satisfied the judgment without paying the accrued $808.76 in statutory postjudgment interest.
¶ 2 Days after a jury awarded plaintiff Marie Patton $820, 000 in damages in her personal injury suit against defendant Christian Biswell, defense counsel informed plaintiffs counsel that the insurance company authorized him to pay the judgment and costs. Plaintiffs counsel accepted the offer. Defense counsel transmitted a check for $820, 243, but plaintiff rejected the check because it contained the lienholder's name. Plaintiff neither refused defendant's offer to pay nor rejected his check because it did not contain postjudgment interest. Counsel meanwhile allowed the situation to devolve into threatened actions and accusations of pettiness, and each involved the trial court by filing various motions. As is relevant here, defendant filed a "Motion for Declaratory Relief," asking the trial court to find defendant satisfied the judgment when he paid the offered judgment and costs. Following a hearing where it took the matter under advisement, the trial court issued an order declaring "that the judgment previously entered herein was and is satisfied in full effective on and after December 17, 2019." The trial court denied all other pending motions, except for plaintiff's "Motion to Dissolve/Vacate Injunction Nun [sic] Pro Tunc," which the court granted.
¶ 3 On appeal, plaintiff presents three arguments challenging the trial court's order:
(1) the trial court erred in denying her statutory right to postjudgment interest on the jury's verdict, (2) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the "Motion for Declaratory Relief," and (3) the trial court erred in denying plaintiff's "Petition to Substitute for Cause." We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with directions.
¶ 5 This case began nearly eight years ago, when Biswell rear-ended Patton, causing her injuries and setting in motion the underlying litigation. The case eventually proceeded to trial, where, on December 12, 2019, the jury returned a verdict in Patton's favor, awarding her $820, 000 in damages. The trial court entered the judgment the same day. Five days later, on December 17, 2019, defense counsel emailed plaintiff's counsel to inform him that defendant's insurance carrier authorized him to pay "the judgment ($820, 000.00) and costs ($243.00) to you and your client in consideration of the jury's verdict," labeling the forthcoming check a "settlement draft." Plaintiff's counsel accepted in an e-mail the next day, saying, "Mrs. Patton accepts," and asking defense counsel to make the draft payable to "Marie Patton and The Unsell Law Firm P.C."
¶ 6 On December 26, 2019, defense counsel remitted a draft totaling "$820, 243.00 paid in satisfaction of the jury's verdict returned on December 12, 2019," and made the check payable to "The Unsell Law Firm PC & Wadena Insurance Company & Marie Patton & Trover Solutions Inc." Defense counsel's letter requested a signed "Satisfaction" and cautioned against plaintiff's counsel negotiating the check until he returned the signed satisfaction form. The next day plaintiff's counsel rejected the draft, saying, "that is not how I instructed you to draft the check." Besides charging defense counsel with "just being petty," plaintiff's counsel gave no other reason for rejecting the check. Plaintiff's counsel did not broach postjudgment interest and had not mentioned it at all since the jury verdict. Plaintiff's response prompted several communications between the parties on December 27, 2019.
¶ 7 Defense counsel relayed his belief he had to include the lienholder on the draft and could not take plaintiff's counsel's verbal assurance to indemnify the defendant or the insurance company. A new plaintiff's counsel entered the fray, reiterating plaintiff's rejection of the settlement draft and restating plaintiff's willingness to indemnify defendant, defense counsel, and the insurance company against all liens in the case. Plaintiff's counsel threatened: "If you would like to gamble with the 9% interest regarding your belief this does not qualify as a settlement, then so be it." This is the first time any of the attorneys representing plaintiff mentioned postjudgment interest.
¶ 8 On January 3, 2020, plaintiff's counsel sent another letter to defense counsel, returning the check for $820, 243. The letter read:
On January 14, 2020, defendant filed a "Motion for Declaratory Relief," asking the trial court for a "declaration that the Defendant has fully and completely satisfied its obligation in respect to the third-party's right of recovery or subrogation interest in the judgment previously entered" and" [t]his Defendant has therefore performed all acts and done all things required of it in order to secure the satisfaction of the judgment as previously entered." Plaintiff countered with a "Motion for Enforcement of Settlement or Judgment," noting that defendant owed her "$820, 000, $808.72 in interest, and the costs of the suit," when she "accepted the offer to settle." Plaintiff requested the trial court order defendant to fulfill the settlement by paying her the judgment plus interest and costs.
¶ 9 Over the next several weeks, the parties filed various motions in the trial court. Though defendant mailed a check to plaintiff's counsel for the judgment and costs (there had been no demand for postjudgment interest yet), plaintiff filed citations to discover defendant's assets and garnish his wages, even contacting defendant's employer to warn him about plaintiff's collection efforts. On January 27, 2020, the trial court issued an injunction "restrain[ing] and enjoin[ing] the Plaintiff from further pursuing the collection of the judgment previously entered herein by way of citation to discover assets and/or wage garnishment or non-wage garnishment or by any other means without further order of the court."
¶ 10 On January 29, 2020, plaintiff's counsel informed the defense and the trial court that plaintiff satisfied the lienholder's interest in this matter. Defense counsel then issued a new check for $820, 243, dated January 31, 2020, payable to only "The Unsell Law Firm PC & Marie Patton." Despite this apparent resolution, the parties kept filing motions in the trial court.
¶ 11 On February 7, 2020, plaintiff filed a "Petition to Substitute for Cause," outlining instances where Judge Giganti allegedly displayed bias toward plaintiff and her counsel. The petition, however, did not contain claims where Judge Giganti's alleged bias actually prejudiced her case. Defendant responded by moving to strike plaintiff's petition as "untimely and improper, and is otherwise neither well-grounded in fact nor warranted by existing law *** and it is interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation."
¶ 12 On February 10, 2020, the trial court held a scheduled hearing for the various pending motions. After dispensing with a few ministerial matters, Judge Giganti stated: Later that day, the parties appeared before Judge John M. Madonia, presiding judge of Sangamon County, for consideration of plaintiff's petition to substitute Judge Giganti for cause. The trial court noted the parties "requested an expeditious ruling on the petition[ ]," and so it took time to review the relevant materials and case law. Plaintiff's counsel argued the various incidents alleged in the petition "show[ed] a pattern of bias." Counsel devoted most of the argument to an instance when the court held an emergency, ex parte hearing on defendant's petition for injunctive relief. Judge Madonia eventually denied plaintiff's petition, finding plaintiff failed to prove that Judge Giganti showed bias or actual prejudice. Branding the case "unique," Judge Madonia concluded Judge Giganti rightly took control of the case when he scheduled the emergency hearing and issued defendant injunctive relief. Judge Madonia returned the case to Judge Giganti.
¶ 13 On February 19, 2020, the parties reassembled before the trial court for a hearing on defendant's "Motion for Declaratory Relief" and all other pending motions. In support...
To continue reading
Request your trial