Rom v. Gephart

16 Citing cases

  1. Sunderland v. Portes

    324 Ill. App. 3d 105 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that because of the plaintiffs' age, disability, and lack of representation during the two years that passed between the entry of the summary judgment and dismissal orders and the filing of the petition to vacate, it would be manifestly unjust to find a lack of due diligence

    It is well established that "[w]here the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person, a judgment obtained against a minor, where no guardian ad litem had been appointed or where a guardian ad litem who had been appointed had so culpably failed to represent the minor in the action that judgment was entered, is voidable and may be set aside by appropriate proceedings." Rom v. Gephart, 30 Ill. App.2d 199, 207-08 (1961). A petition for relief from the judgment is the appropriate method for requesting that such judgment be vacated. Rom, 30 Ill. App.2d at 208 (referring to section 72 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1961, ch. 110, par. 72 (now 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 1998)))).

  2. In re Parentage of Griesmeyer v. LaRosa

    302 Ill. App. 3d 905 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 13 times

    "[T]he appointment of a guardian ad litem is not a mere formality." Rom v. Gephart , 30 Ill. App.2d 199, 208 (1961), citing McCarthy v. Cain , 301 Ill. 534 (1922). As the representative of a minor, the guardian adlitem is a party to the action.

  3. Stern, Walter Simmons, Inc. v. Seaboard Surety Co.

    308 F. Supp. 252 (N.D. Ill. 1970)   Cited 2 times

    This is true even if it becomes apparent from matter outside the complaint against the insured that coverage is excluded by some other clause of the policy. George H. Wolff Sons, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 286 F.2d 862 (7th Cir. 1961); Palmer v. Sunberg, 71 Ill. App.2d 22, 217 N.E.2d 463 (1966); Stein v. Lindquist, 69 Ill. App.2d 340, 217 N.E.2d 438 (1966); McFadyen v. North River Ins. Co., 62 Ill. App.2d 164, 209 N.E.2d 833 (1965); Sims v. Illinois National Casualty Co. of Springfield, 43 Ill. App.2d 184, 193 N.E.2d 123 (1963); Gould v. County Mutual Casualty Co., 37 Ill. App.2d 265, 185 N.E.2d 603 (1962); Rom v. Gephart, 30 Ill. App.2d 199, 173 N.E.2d 828 (1961). Perhaps the most concise statement of this rule is found in McFadyen v. North River Ins. Co., supra, 62 Ill.App.2d at 170-171, 209 N.E.2d at 836:

  4. Nichols v. Fahrenkamp

    2019 IL 123990 (Ill. 2019)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses

    In contrast, cases in which a guardian ad litem "represent[ed]" a ward as an advocate date to earlier in Illinois's history. 755 ILCS 5/11-10.1 (West 2016) ; In re Estates of Azevedo , 115 Ill. App. 3d 260, 70 Ill.Dec. 950, 450 N.E.2d 423 ; In re Estate of Cohn , 95 Ill. App. 3d 204, 50 Ill.Dec. 683, 419 N.E.2d 951 ; Roth , 52 Ill. App. 3d 220, 10 Ill.Dec. 54, 367 N.E.2d 442 ; see also Rom v. Gephart , 30 Ill. App. 2d 199, 208, 173 N.E.2d 828 (1961). The more recent cases provide a more fitting context for viewing the court's order here than outdated cases like In re Estates of Azevedo or Gephart .

  5. Jackson General Hosp. v. Davis

    464 S.E.2d 593 (W. Va. 1995)   Cited 24 times

    See also Chandos, Inc. v. Samson, 150 W. Va. 428, 434, 146 S.E.2d 837, 841 (1966) (No valid judgment can be entered against an incompetent, unless he is "properly represented" in a suit or action.); Rom v. Gephart, 30 Ill. App.2d 199, 208, 173 N.E.2d 828, 832 (1961), (The appointment of guardian ad litem is not a mere formality.); Laxy v. Laxy, 3 Ill. App.2d 156, 164, 120 N.E.2d 881, 885 (1954), (The duties of a guardian ad litem are not perfunctory.); Lugar Silverstein, West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, p. 163 (Michie 1960), ("A default judgment may not be entered under Rule 55(b)(2) against a person under disability unless he is properly represented, as provided in this Rule (17)."); 6 Moore's Federal Practice, 55.05[4] (2d ed. 1995), ("If the infant or incompetent defendant is not represented by a general fiduciary who has appeared in the action, the court should appoint a guardian ad litem who should plead such a denial as to put the plaintiff to the proof of the case.").

  6. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Peppers

    64 Ill. 2d 187 (Ill. 1976)   Cited 353 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the trial court in a declaratory judgment action abuses its discretion when it determines any of the “ultimate facts upon which recovery is predicated” in the underlying case

    1974). This duty to defend extends to cases where the complaint alleges several causes of action or theories of recovery against an insured, one of which is within the coverage of a policy while the others may not be. ( Krutsinger v. Illinois Casualty Co., 10 Ill.2d 518; Sims v. Illinois National Casualty Co., 43 Ill. App.2d 184; Rom v. Gephart, 30 Ill. App.2d 199; Canadian Radium Uranium Corp. v. Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, 342 Ill. App. 456, rev'd on other grounds, 411 Ill. 325; Alm v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. (Wyo. 1962), 369 P.2d 216; Butters v. City of Independence (Mo. 1974), 513 S.W.2d 418; Schurgast v. Schumann (1968), 156 Conn. 471, 242 A.2d 695; Babcock Wilcox Co. v. Parsons Corp. (8th Cir. 1970), 430 F.2d 531. See also Annots., 41 A.L.R.2d 434 (1955), 50 A.L.R.2d 458 (1956); 14 Couch on Insurance sec. 51:43 (1975-76 Supp.).

  7. Schurgast v. Schumann

    156 Conn. 471 (Conn. 1968)   Cited 137 times
    In Schurgast v. Schumann, 156 Conn. 471 (1968), the Connecticut Supreme Court refused to give effect to a no-impleader contractual clause at the expense of a Connecticut statute (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-102a) that allows impleading and in view of the object of allowing impleading “to facilitate litigation, to save costs, to bring all of the litigants into one proceeding, and to dispose of an entire matter without the expense of many suits and many trials.” Id.

    "Where a complaint in an action against one to whom a policy of liability insurance has been issued states different causes of action or theories of recovery against the insured, and one such cause is within the coverage of the policy but others may not be within such coverage, the insurer is bound to defend with respect to those which, if proved, are within the coverage." 14 Couch, Insurance (2d Ed.) 51:43; Sims v. Illinois National Casualty Co., 43 Ill. App.2d 184, 195, 193 N.E.2d 123; Rom v. Gephart, 30 Ill. App.2d 199, 207, 173 N.E.2d 828; Canadian Radium Uranium Corporation v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 342 Ill. App.? 456, 461, 97 N.E.2d 132; Christian v. Royal Ins. Co., 185 Minn. 180, 182, 240 N.W. 365; see note, 50 A.L.R.2d 458, 506 24. The duty of Aetna to defend the action was clear, and its failure to do so was a breach of its duty to Schumann.

  8. People v. Viridiana M. (In re J.D.)

    2018 Ill. App. 180580 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 4 times

    "The duty of a guardian ad litem is ‘to call the rights of the minor to the attention of the court, to present their interests and claim for them such protections as under the law they are entitled.’ " In re Griesmeyer , 302 Ill. App. 3d at 914, 236 Ill.Dec. 227, 707 N.E.2d 72 (quoting Rom v. Gephart , 30 Ill. App. 2d 199, 208, 173 N.E.2d 828 (1961) ). A GAL's guiding principal is to act in the best interests of the minor.

  9. Stone v. Pellegrini-Stone

    2014 Ill. App. 3d 130977 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)

    Vlastelica v. Brend, 2011 IL App (1st) 102587, ¶ 22. "The duty of the guardian ad litem is 'to call the rights of the minor to the attention of the court, to present their interests and claim for them such protection as under the law they are entitled.' " In re Griesmeyer, 302 Ill. App. 3d 905, 914 (1998) (quoting Rom v.Gephart, 30 Ill. App. 2d 199, 208 (1961)). "A GAL is the 'eyes and ears' of the court.

  10. Ott ex rel. Ott v. Little Co. of Mary Hospital

    273 Ill. App. 3d 563 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995)   Cited 20 times
    Upholding settlement where trial judge considered, in part, the wishes of the minor's parents, who were court-appointed guardians of her estate, and the recommendations of the guardian ad litem

    As further noted above, once appointed, the guardian ad litem is charged with defending the interests of the minor. ( McCarthy v. Cain (1922), 301 Ill. 534, 134 N.E. 62; Roth v. Roth (1977), 52 Ill. App.3d 220, 367 N.E.2d 442; Rom v. Gephart (1961), 30 Ill. App.2d 199, 173 N.E.2d 828.) We believe the appointment of a guardian ad litem vests that individual with exclusive authority to proceed on behalf of the minor in the pending lawsuit and operates to derogate and relieve any other person's authority to do so. Such a conclusion is implied from the language of section 11-13 of the Probate Act ("[t]he representative of the estate of a ward shall appear for and represent * * * unless another person is appointed for that purpose") ( 755 ILCS 5/11-13(d) (West 1992)).