Wilson v. LeFevour

• Decision Date: 15 August 1974
• Docket Number: No. 57665,57665
• Citation: 317 N.E.2d 772,22 Ill.App.3d 608
• Parties: Betty WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard LeFEVOUR, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 772

317 N.E.2d 772

22 Ill.App.3d 608

Betty WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard LeFEVOUR, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 57665.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.

Aug. 15, 1974.

Betty Wilson, pro se.

William J. Harte, Chicago, for defendant-appellee.

DEMPSEY, Justice.

In a space of three years, September 1964 to September 1967, the plaintiff Betty Wilson was represented by twelve different attorneys in divorce proceedings between her husband and herself. One of the attorneys, the defendant Richard LeFevour, represented her for less than two months--from about November 25, 1965, to sometime in January 1966.

In August 1971 Mrs Wilson filed a complaint against eleven of the attorneys. She accused them of malpractice and of injuring her mental and physical health. The general accusation was that they exacted retainer fees from her, but did nothing to force her husband to pay accumulated alimony and child support payments or to obtain an adequate financial settlement. She asked $50,000 in damages from each.

As to LeFevour, she conceded that the was the one lawyer who took her case without a fee and that he made a court appearance for her, but she charged, nevertheless, that '. . . once again nothing was mentioned about money for me. At this time my husband started a counter-suit for desertion. At the time of the next court appearance I called Mr. LeFevour's office and was told he was in California.' She alleged that LeFevour did not tell her beforehand that he would be away and that she went to court unattended by counsel. In an amended complaint she made the additional allegation that during the period that she was represented by him, over five hundred dollars in bills accumulated which should have been paid by her husband, but that LeFevour did nothing to procure payment.

LeFevour filed motions to strike the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action and to dismiss on the ground that the statute of limitations had run. The motions were granted and the cause was continued as to the remaining defendants. The court found that there was no reason to delay an appeal from its ruling.

This cause of action, if any, arose in January 1966, but the complaint was not filed until August 1971, which was past the limitation of two years for a tort action and the limitation of five years for a suit based on an oral contract. Ill.Rev.Stat., 1969, ch. 83, paras. 15 and 16. Mrs. Wilson argues, however, that her action is not barred by the Limitations Act because section 22 of that Act is applicable to the facts of this case. Section 22 states:

'If a person liable to an action fraudulently conceals the cause of such action from the knowledge of the person entitled thereto, the action may be commenced at any time within five years after the person entitled to bring the same discovers that he has such cause of action, and not afterwards.' Ill.Rev.Stat., 1969, ch. 83, para. 23.

Although the plaintiff asserts on appeal that there was fraudulent concealment of her cause of action, she nowhere states any fact which LeFevour kept from her or misrepresented to her. She neither alleged nor proved fraudulent conduct on his part.

A party seeking to avail himself of section...