She is estopped from arguing otherwise now. See generally First Bank of Highland Park v. Sklarov, 2019 IL App (2d) 190210, ¶ 14, 137 N.E.3d 218 (explaining equitable principles prevent parties from giving a reason for their conduct and decision and then changing that reason and putting their conduct and decisions upon other and different considerations) (quoting 1002 E. 87th Street, LLC v. Midway Broadcasting Corp., 2018 IL App (1st) 171691, ¶ 20, 107 N.E.3d 868). ¶ 47 By plaintiff's own admission, defendant paid all but $808.76 of the judgment when he transmitted the settlement draft on December 26, 2019.

"Although the doctrine is not the same as equitable estoppel, it is similarly equitable in nature, rooted in a concern for fairness." First Bankof Highland Park v. Sklarov, 2019 IL App (2d) 190210, ¶ 15. The doctrine "prohibits a party who has repudiated a contract on one ground from changing his position after litigation has begun and thus 'mend[ing] his hold.'" Smith v. Union Automobile Indemnity Co., 323 Ill.App.3d 741, 745 (2001) (quoting Larson v. Johnson, 1 Ill.App.2d 36, 39-40 (1953)).

¶ 29 SMI asserts that it would be unfair to apply this "archaic" doctrine to bar it from presenting some or all of its coverage defenses. Although we recently noted that the doctrine has been applied in Illinois for over a century (First Bank of Highland Park v. Sklarov, 2019 IL App (2d) 190210, ¶ 14; see also County of Schuyler v. Missouri Bridge & Iron Co., 256 Ill. 348, 353 (1912)), we need not determine whether it applies to any particular coverage defense in "a" through "u." Rather, we determine that all of SMI's coverage defenses were barred.

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) First Bank of Highland Park v. Sklarov, 2019 IL App (2d) 190210, ¶ 23. The best indicator of the legislature's intent is the plain language of the statute.

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) First Bank of Highland Park v. Sklarov, 2019 IL App (2d) 190210, ¶ 23. The best indicator of the legislature's intent is the plain language of the statute.

¶ 15 Statutory interpretation of the provisions of the Foreclosure Law (735 ILCS 5/15-1101 et seq. (West 2018)), presents a purely legal issue subject to de novo review. First Bank of Highland Park v. Sklarov, 2019 IL App (2d) 190210, ¶ 22. In construing a statute, our task is to "ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intent."