Trogi v. Diabri Vicari, P.C

17 Citing cases

  1. Brummel v. Grossman

    2018 Ill. App. 162540 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 28 times

    "The limitations period in a legal malpractice case begins to run from the time the injured party knows or reasonably should know that he has suffered an injury which was wrongfully caused." Trogi v. Diabri & Vicari, P.C. , 362 Ill.App.3d 93, 98, 298 Ill.Dec. 230, 839 N.E.2d 553 (2005). "Although that time is normally a question of fact, a court may decide the issue as a matter of law where the facts are undisputed and only one conclusion may be drawn from them."

  2. Mauer v. Rubin

    401 Ill. App. 3d 630 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 41 times
    Finding the harm to the plaintiff was done once the judgment of dissolution incorporating the allegedly defective marital settlement agreement was entered

    In the alternative, Mauer contends that the statute of repose should be tolled in accordance with the doctrines of equitable estoppel and fraudulent concealment, because of his allegations that defendants lulled him into inaction by falsely assuring him that his interests were being protected. We consider these contentions in turn, reviewing the trial court's ruling on this matter de novo. Trogi v. Diabri Vicari, P.C., 362 Ill. App. 3d 93, 95, 839 N.E.2d 553, 555 (2005) ( de novo review of section 2-619 motion to dismiss based on statute of repose). Defendants also argue, as they did before the trial court, that plaintiff's claim is time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations.

  3. Terra Found. for Am. Art v. DLA Piper LLP

    2016 Ill. App. 153285 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Terra Foundation, the defendant law firm represented the plaintiff in connection with a real estate sale wherein the plaintiff retained ownership of the retail portions of the parcel.

    (Emphasis added.) Terra relies on Lamet,Snyder v. Heidelberger, 2011 IL 111052, 352 Ill.Dec. 176, 953 N.E.2d 415, and Trogi v. Diabri & Vicari, P.C., 362 Ill.App.3d 93, 298 Ill.Dec. 230, 839 N.E.2d 553 (2005). We disagree with Terra.

  4. Anderson v. Sullivan, Taylor & Gumina, P.C.

    2023 Ill. App. 221796 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    ¶ 25 Relying on Hermansen v. Riebandt, 2020 IL App (1st) 191735, ¶ 90 and Trogi v. Diabri &Vicari, P.C., 362 Ill.App.3d 93, 96 (2005) plaintiff contends that defendants' preparation and filing of the QUILDRO was a material element of the representation. She contends that the portion of the marital settlement judgment affording her the death benefit would not be effective until the QUILDRO was filed.

  5. Alan Wu v. Gaines & Puljic Ltd.

    2023 Ill. App. 221110 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    Impliedly, defendants would have provided those documents at the very latest when the rescission offer began, so the statute of repose would therefore have begun on March 15, 2014, the latest date that defendants would have issued those documents. See Trogi v. Diabri &Vicari, P.C., 362 Ill.App.3d 93, 96-97 (2005) (holding that the period of repose began to run from the date when the defendant "last performed the work involved in the alleged negligence and sent the final work product," an improperly recorded deed, to the plaintiff) (citing Fricka v. Bauer, 309 Ill.App.3d 82, 86-87 (1999)). Plaintiff's complaint, however, was filed on March 26, 2020, which was after the six-year statute of repose had run.

  6. Mortensen v. Zahour

    2019 Ill. App. 3d 180101 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    Although when a party knew or reasonably should have known is generally a question of fact, courts may decide the issue as a matter of law where the facts are undisputed and only one conclusion may be drawn from them. Trogi v. Diabri & Vicari, P.C., 362 Ill. App. 3d 93, 98 (2005). ¶ 24 Mortensen argues that the statute of limitations did not begin to run in this case until he actually acquired knowledge of Schaffer's and Zahour's negligence through his current counsel in 2012.

  7. Koczor v. Melnyk

    407 Ill. App. 3d 994 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that the repose period begins to run with the last act of representation that forms the basis for the alleged malpractice

    Once the statute of repose has expired, the potential plaintiff no longer has a recognized right of action to redress any harm that has been done. Trogi v. Diabri Vicari, PC, 362 Ill. App. 3d 93, 96 (2005). "Illinois courts have interpreted section 13-214.3(c) to provide that the repose period begins to run with the `last act of representation upon which the malpractice is founded.

  8. Snyder v. Heidelberger

    2011 IL 111052 (Ill. 2011)   Cited 140 times
    In Snyder, however, the court held that the provision did not apply, because the injury—the failure to realize that the property was in a land trust when the attorney prepared a quitclaim deed to it—occurred when the deed was delivered and recorded, because it became effective at that time.

    The period of repose in a legal malpractice case begins to run on the last date on which the attorney performs the work involved in the alleged negligence. Carlen v. First State Bank of Beecher City, 367 Ill. App. 3d 1051, 1056 (2006); Trogi v. Diabri Vicari, P.C., 362 Ill. App. 3d 93, 96 (2005). Here, the record shows the last act of defendant's representation of Wilbert in this matter took place on June 25, 1997, when defendant mailed the original recorded quitclaim deed to Wilbert.

  9. Gleicher v. Pullman

    2023 Ill. App. 221706 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    ¶ 20 The time at which the statute of limitations begins to accrue is "normally a question of fact, [but] a court may decide the issue as a matter of law where the facts are undisputed and only one conclusion may be drawn from them." Id. ¶ 26 (quoting Trogi v. Diabri & Vicari, P.C., 362 Ill.App.3d 93, 98 (1st Dist. 2005)). We, therefore, must determine "whether the existence of a genuine issue of material fact should have precluded the dismissal or, absent such an issue of fact, whether dismissal is proper as a matter of law."

  10. Dema v. O'Hara

    2021 IL App (1st) 201003 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    Once the statute of repose has expired, the potential plaintiff no longer has a recognized right of action to redress any harm that has been done. Trogi v. Diabri & Vicari, P.C., 362 Ill. App. 3d 93, 96 (2005). "Illinois courts have interpreted section 13-214.3(c) to provide that the repose period begins to run with the 'last act of representation upon which the malpractice is founded.' "