Joyce v. Michelotti

2021 IL App (1st) 191787-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: June 30, 2021
• Docket: 1-19-1787
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2021 IL App (1st) 19-1787-U

No. 1-19-1787 Order filed June 30, 2021 First Division

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT

JOSEPHINE JOYCE, ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court Plaintiff-Appellant, ) of Cook County ) v. ) No. 2018 M4 002273 A.T. JOYCE, J.C. MICHELOTTI ) ) The Honorable Defendant-Appellees. ) Kevin T. Lee ) Judge Presiding

PRESIDING JUSTICE WALKER delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Pierce and Coghlan concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

Held: When a plaintiff alleges in a complaint that the defendant recorded a mechanics’ lien, and the defendant did not have a contract for the work he claimed to have done, the complaint adequately states a cause of action to quiet title.

¶1 Josephine Joyce, appearing pro se, brought an action against her brother, A.T. Joyce. She

now appeals from an order dismissing her complaint for failing to state a claim. 735 ILCS 5/2-

615(a) (West 2018)). We find the factual allegations of the complaint sufficient to state a cause of No. 1-19-1787

action to quiet title. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court’s judgment and remand for further

proceedings on the complaint.

¶2 BACKGROUND

¶3 Because this case comes before us on a dismissal under section 2-615 of the Code of Civil

Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2018)), we must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations of

the complaint. Doe v. Coe, 2019 IL 123521, ¶ 20. Accordingly, we derive our statement of facts

from the complaint. Cochran v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., 2017 IL 121200, ¶ 11.

¶4 In 2012, A.T., through his attorney, Joseph Michelotti, filed a lien against property owned

by a trust for the benefit of Josephine. When Josephine discovered the lien in 2014, she contacted

the trustee, First American Bank. Rosanne DuPass, a trust officer, told Josephine that the trustee

had not received notice of the mechanics’ lien. DuPass checked the county recorder’s website and

found that A.T. had recorded a mechanics’ lien against the property. DuPass requested from

Michelotti “all supporting documentation regarding the Mechanic's Lien.” Michelotti “indicated

th[at] he does not have any files on the matter.,” and A.T. “took all his files.” Josephine alleged:

“No documents of a contract/agreement *** support any actions that would

constitute a mechanic lien on the real property in issue before and after May 2009

through the date of April 30, 2019.

***

The requirements of a legal contract were not met by the means of oral, or

implied, or written with the contractor.

An oral contract *** would be a hallucination of the contractor.

-2- No. 1-19-1787

[T]here were no agreements or acceptance for furnished materials/delivery

or work performance as written on the mechanic lien claim.

A.T. Joyce willfully signed, under Oath, the Notice and Claim for Lien

without a just cause or legal right, lien prepared by attorney J.C. Michelotti. ***

The contractor submitted a false affidavit in support of its lien claim.”

¶5 Josephine framed her amended complaint as causes of action for fraud, theft, unjust

enrichment, and for filing a false mechanics’ lien. Josephine sought monetary relief and an “Order

by court for the unlawful Mechanic's Lien to be removed from real property in issue.” Josephine

further amended her complaint to add that “Notices/Statements by claimant were not served,” as

required by the Mechanics Lien Act. 770 ILCS 60/5 (West 2018). The circuit court dismissed the

complaint with prejudice. Josephine now appeals. A.T. has not filed an appellee’s brief. We

consider the case on the basis of Josephine’s brief alone. First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis

Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976).

¶6 ANALYSIS

¶7 On appeal, Josephine argues that her complaint stated a cause of action. A section 2-615

dismissal motion challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint based on defects apparent on

the face of the pleading. Simpkins v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 2012 IL 110662, ¶ 13. The relevant

inquiry on a section 2-615 motion to dismiss is whether the allegations, viewed in the light most

favorable to the non-moving party, are sufficient to state a claim. Bonhomme v. St. James, 2012 IL

112393, ¶ 34. A court must accept all well-pleaded facts in the complaint, as well as any reasonable

-3- No. 1-19-1787

inferences that flow from those facts, as true. Cochran, 2017 IL 121200, ¶ 11. A circuit court

should not dismiss a cause of action under section 2-615 unless it is clear from the pleadings that

no set of facts can be proven that would entitle the plaintiff to recover. Id. We review the circuit

court's order dismissing a complaint under section 2-615 de novo. Schweihs v. Chase Home Fin.,

LLC, 2016 IL 120041, ¶ 27.

¶8 Josephine alleged that A.T. and Michelotti filed a mechanics’ lien against her property

when A.T. had no valid contract for work on the property. “A mechanics' lien must be based upon

a valid contract, and in its absence the lien is unenforceable.” Pascal P. Paddock, Inc. v. Glennon,

32 Ill. 2d 51, 53 (1964).

¶9 Here, as in Mitchell v. Norman James Construction Co., 291 Ill. App. 3d 927, 941 (1997),

the complaint “alleges facts which, if true, support an inference that the lien *** constitutes an

invalid cloud on the title to the plaintiff's property. As such, the count states a good and sufficient

cause of action to quiet title.” See also Yeates v. Daily, 13 Ill. 2d 510, 514 (1958) (complaint stated

a cause of action for removal of an invalid cloud on title, and for incidental damages). Josephine

did not use the phrase “quiet title” in her complaint. However, “a motion to dismiss should be

denied if a good cause of action is stated, although not the one intended by the plaintiff.” City of

North Chicago v. North Chicago News, Inc., 106 Ill. App. 3d 587, 594 (1982). Because Josephine

alleged in her complaint and supporting documents facts that support a cause of action to quiet

title, we reverse the circuit court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings.

¶ 10 CONCLUSION

-4- No. 1-19-1787

¶ 11 Josephine’s amended complaint adequately alleges facts supporting a cause of action to

quiet title. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court’s judgment and remand for further

¶ 12 Reversed and remanded.

-5-