Robert Brandolino (“Brandolino”) retained Douglas Schlak (“Schlak”) to assist him in a real estate sale. Brandolino held a life estate in the property to be sold, while his three sons (the “Plaintiffs”) held remainder interests. The Plaintiffs granted Schlak power of attorney so that he could represent them and their father in the transaction . When the sale was concluded, Brandolino gave each son $100,000, which they believed was a gift for their help in facilitating the sale. Thirteen years later, however, the Plaintiffs discovered previously unknown papers in Brandolino’s home explaining their true interest in the property. These included several documents signed by Schlak on the Plaintiffs’ behalf without their knowledge or consent, tax and closing forms, and papers explaining that Brandolino’s supposed gift to the Plaintiffs was actually payment for their interest in the property.
The Plaintiffs sued Schlak for legal malpractice. They alleged that Schlak never explained their interests to them or advised them to seek separate counsel given the possible conflict with Brandolino’s interests. Rather Schlak purportedly induced them not to attend the closing, signed documents on their behalf without permission, failed to deliver various documents to them after the sale, and otherwise intentionally withheld material information. Had they been properly counseled, the Plaintiffs insisted they would have demanded more money for their remainder interests.
Schlak moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ complaint as untimely, since it had been filed more than thirteen years after his alleged malpractice. At hearing, the Court explained that “in Illinois, a statute of repose provides that legal malpractice claims ‘may not be commenced in any event more than 6 years after the date on which the act or omission occurred.’” Id. at 2, 735 ILCS 5/13-214.3(c). However, the Court noted that fraudulent concealment tolls the statute of repose “until the plaintiff has had a reasonable opportunity to discover the malpractice.” Id. at 3, 735 ILCS 5/13-215. Here, the Plaintiffs argued that Schlak’s deliberate failure to provide them with material information relating to the property sale constituted fraudulent concealment, which tolled the statute of repose until they uncovered the fraud many years later. Schlak countered that fraudulent concealment requires “affirmative actions, as opposed to mere silence.” Id. The Court conceded that Schlak’s position is generally correct, except where two parties maintain a special relationship like that of an attorney and client. In this case, the Court held that discovery could reveal Schlak’s actions or lack thereof amounted to fraudulent concealment that prevented the Plaintiffs from discovering their claim. Schlak’s motion to dismiss was therefore denied.
(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)