Silberstein v. Joos

Decision Date02 May 1978
Docket NumberNo. 77-361,77-361
Citation59 Ill.App.3d 293,16 Ill.Dec. 707,375 N.E.2d 580
Parties, 16 Ill.Dec. 707 Robert L. SILBERSTEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Geraldine JOOS, the Estate of William Walter Joos, incompetent, Transamerica Insurance Group and Pekin Farmer's Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Robert L. Silberstein, Peoria, for plaintiff-appellant.

Thomas V. Cassidy, Peoria, for defendants-appellees.

STENGEL, Justice.

Plaintiff Robert L. Silberstein appeals from an order dismissing a petition for adjudication and enforcement of a lien for attorney fees in connection with a personal injury action.

According to the pleadings and motions in the record, William and Geraldine Joos were injured in an automobile accident on August 25, 1974. On September 10, 1974, Mr. and Mrs. Joos signed a contract engaging plaintiff to prosecute or settle all claims for damages resulting from the injuries sustained in the August 25 accident. The contract provided for a contingent fee plus expenses. Plaintiff was discharged by Mr. and Mrs. Joos on October 18, 1974, and sometime thereafter two personal injury suits were filed by Attorney Thomas V. Cassidy on behalf of Geraldine Joos and the estate of William Joos, an incompetent. Both suits were ultimately settled. A court order approving the settlement and dismissing the two suits was filed on October 11, 1976.

On January 6, 1977, pursuant to notices sent by plaintiff, defendants and plaintiff appeared before the Circuit Court of Tazewell County at which time the court ruled orally that no attorney's lien had been filed before the cases were dismissed. That same day plaintiff filed a handwritten petition for adjudication of attorney's lien which was also denied. The written order of the court stated that the handwritten petition was denied as not timely filed.

Plaintiff then filed a separate action (No. 77-Z-55) for adjudication and enforcement of an attorney's lien. Upon special appearances and motions by the various defendants, that action was dismissed for want of personal jurisdiction because defendants were not personally served. Thereafter, the instant action was filed as No. 77-Z-606. Plaintiff alleged in his petition that he rendered services pursuant to his contract with defendants Geraldine and William Joos and that he has a valid lien against the proceeds of any settlement. He requested that the court adjudicate the rights of the parties and enforce the lien pursuant to statute. Defendants joined in a motion to dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction of the subject matter and case on the grounds that the orders dismissing plaintiff's petitions in the earlier cases (Nos. 74-L-1620, 76-L-468, and 77-Z-55) were adjudications in favor of defendants. Plaintiff then filed a motion to strike defendants' motion because the motion to dismiss was filed more than 30 days after the complaint was served. The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and denied plaintiff's motion to strike. Plaintiff appeals, contending that the motion to dismiss should not have been granted but rather that the motion to strike should have been allowed.

Considering first, plaintiff's motion to strike, Supreme Court Rule 181 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 110A, par. 181) states that defendant may make his appearance in a cause by filing a motion within 30 days after service of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Pedersen & Houpt, P.C. v. Main St. Vill. W., Part 1, LLC, 1–11–2971.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 12, 2013
    ...notice of P & H's lien was sent well after the case was resolved and the judgment became final. Silberstein v. Joos, 59 Ill.App.3d 293, 295, 16 Ill.Dec. 707, 375 N.E.2d 580 (1978) (notice must be sent before judgment is satisfied by defendants); Rendtorff v. Lowman, 184 Ill.App. 391 (1913) ......
  • Illinois Housing Development Authority v. Sjostrom & Sons, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 30, 1982
    ...plaintiff can show that it was prejudiced by the late filing there is no abuse of discretion. See also Silberstein v. Joos (1978), 59 Ill.App.3d 293, 16 Ill.Dec. 707, 375 N.E.2d 580; McGrath Heating & Air Conditioning Co. v. Gustafson (1976), 38 Ill.App.3d 465, 348 N.E.2d Because this court......
  • Pedersen & Houpt, P.C. v. Main St. Vill. W.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 28, 2012
    ...in the Act. Secondly, notice of P&H 's lien was sent well after the case was resolved and the judgment became final. Silberstein v. Joos, 59 Ill. App. 3d 293, 295 (1978) (notice must be sent before judgment is satisfied by defendants); Rendtorff v. Lowman, 184 Ill. App. 391 (1913) (same); s......
  • Wheeler v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • April 17, 1984
    ...plaintiff can show that it was prejudiced by the late filing there is no abuse of discretion. See also Silberstein v. Joos (1978), 59 Ill.App.3d 293 [16 Ill.Dec. 707, 375 N.E.2d 580]; McGrath Heating & Air Conditioning Co. v. Gustafson (1976), 38 Ill.App.3d 465 Because this court can view t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT