Opinion
No. 01 C 399
January 3, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the December 11, 2001, Memorandum Opinion and Order. That motion is denied.
Plaintiff claims that he furnished exemplars to his prior attorney in the state court action, who apparently did not furnish them to defendant Metzler and then dismissed that case without plaintiffs knowledge or consent. Even if that is so, it does not change the result. How the state court action came to be dismissed was not the basis of the court's determination, although we do note that parties are normally bound by actions of their retained counsel. Plaintiff does not dispute that in the state court action he claimed he was the owner of the property, that he first claimed in the action here that he was the trustee of a resulting trust, and that he then wished to claim that he was the trustee of an express oral trust. Our reasons for denying that "third bite" were explained in the earlier ruling.