Illinois Lawyer Blog

In Behl v. Gingerich, the Fourth Appellate District of Illinois recently weighed in on what constitutes "substantial compliance" with the Illinois Home Repair and Remodeling Act["the Act"]. In the summer of 2006, defendant Gingerich approached John Behl[d/b/a Behl Construction] about doing some work at the Gingerich home. Defendant Gingerich was a plumbing contractor and had worked with Behl and had confidence in him. Gingerich wanted Behl to build a garage, do some remodeling inside the home and on an existing porch. Plaintiff submitted a bid. The cost was too high and the parties talked about cutting some expense. A second bid was resubmitted and defendant agreed to the terms. The job was scheduled to last 3 months. On several occasions, plaintiff accompanied the defendant to the bank for partial draws and execution of lien waivers. As luck would have it, the parties ultimately had a disagreements about monies owed and work left to be completed. Finally plaintiff concluded he was going to get stiffed and left the job.

In August, 2007, plaintiff filed suit. Ultimately, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, alleging breach of contract[Count I], foreclosure of mechanic's lien[Count II] and promissory estoppel [Count III]. Defendant's answer alleged that plaintiff had failed to comply with the Act, by not securing a written, signed contract before beginning construction. The case went to trial and the Court awarded plaintiff $9594.93. Defendant appealed, insisting that the plaintiff had committed unlawful acts by failing to secure a signed contract and failing to provide defendant with a consumer rights brochure.

The Appellate Court noted for any repair or remodeling over $1000 the contractor is required to provided the customer with a written work order or contract and have the customer sign it. Additionally, the Act requires contractors to provided customers with a brochure detailing their rights. Behl did neither. The question for the Court was - did Behl substantially comply? The Court, after an exhaustive analysis of recent caselaw concluded Behl did substantially comply with the requirements. It was particularly important to the Court that both parties were in the construction trade and had negotiated extensively regarding the job. Absent those facts, Behl might not have prevailed. Most prudent course of action? Do exactly what the Act requires. Don't take any chances.

Very interesting decision recently handed down from the Illinois First District Appellate Court. Chiropractors aren't going to like this one

In Montes v. Mai, plaintiff Montes was a passenger in a car that was struck by a Mai's vehicle. Dr. Fernando Perez, a chiropractor with Neck and Back Clinic in Chicago provided treatment to the plaintiff. The defendant sought the deposition of Perez, which is routine in personal injury cases. Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 204, every physician is entitled to a "reasonable fee" for time spent at a deposition. The Clinic advised defense counsel that the fee for Dr. Perez to appear at a deposition would be $550 an hour. Additionally, the Clinic required a two hour minimum. Defense counsel balked and offered to pay Perez $300 an hour. That offer was refused.

Somehow[the opinion isn't entirely clear]the parties elected to have the trial court decide what the hourly rate for Dr. Perez should be. The Clinic submitted financial records to the court to back up the $550 rate. The trial court however, after review of the records, ruled that the hourly rate would be $66.95 an hour. The Court's formula was pretty straightforward - the 2007 W-2 number showing Perez income was divided by 52 weeks. That number was then divided by 40 hours. Perez refused to be deposed at that hourly rate and appealed the Court's order.

But Perez got no relief from the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court implicity endorsed the formula used by the trial court, but did note that "...myriad ways exist to fairly and reasonably compensate a physician for his time." Additionally, the Appellate Court noted that the best approach is for the parties to reach an agreement as to compensation[meaning that Perez should have jumped on that offer of $300 an hour].

Pleased to report that I have opened a suburban office in beautiful downtown Hinsdale, Illinois at 38 Blaine Street, just a block from the Hinsdale Metra Train Station. Office is actually located in the beautiful rehabbed Victorian pictured below. The house is located in a commercial zone. I have the first floor all to myself. The space comes with a free parking spot right next to the rear entrance. Yes, you read that correctly - free. And free client parking behind the building and in front. That will certainly be good news to clients. Over the years I heard lots of clients inquire if we could meet somewhere besides downtown so they could avoid a) driving downtown and b) paying $27.00 to park their car for two hours.

Phones should be working by Wednesday. Have furniture on order, but won't have it until the later part of March at the earliest. I have been scrambling a bit between the downtown space and Hinsdale, but things seem to be settling down.

I will continue to maintain my Chicago office as well, at 100 West Monroe, Suite 1900. Next office location will ideally be located in Dublin, Ireland. Very near a pub.