Manzili v. Palos Hills Healthcare

Opinion

2026 IL App (1st) 250555-U No. 1-25-0555 Order filed July 31, 2026 Sixth 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

) JELANI MANZILI, Independent Administrator ) of the Estate of GRACE ANN BROWN, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court Deceased, ) of Cook County. ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) No. 23 L 7421 v. ) ) PALOS HILLS HEALTHCARE, LLC, ) The Honorable d/b/a BRIA OF PALOS HILLS and PM ) Kathy M. Flanagan, NURSING and REHABILITATION, LLC, ) Judge, presiding. ) ) Defendants-Appellees.

JUSTICE HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice C.A. Walker and Justice Gamrath concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: Affirming trial court order granting motion to enforce settlement agreement.

¶2 Jelani Manzili, acting as administrator of the estate of his mother, Grace Ann Brown, sued

the defendants, operators of the nursing home where she resided, alleging they provided

negligent care before her death. After mediation, defendants agreed to pay Manzili $300,000. 1-25-0555

When Manzili refused to sign the settlement agreement and release, defendants moved to

enforce the settlement. The trial court granted the motion. Representing himself, Manzili

appeals. The trial court stayed its order pending the appeal.

¶3 Manzili contends he withdrew his attorney’s authority to settle during mediation and asks

us to reverse and remand for trial. Manzili relies on text exchange with his attorney, stating he

was rejecting the defendants’ settlement offer and wanted to go to trial. Although the

supplemental record on appeal contains the document, it was never presented to the trial court,

so we cannot consider it. Absent evidence that the parties did not have a meeting of the minds,

we affirm the order enforcing the settlement agreement.

¶4 Background

¶5 Manzili sued Palos Hills Healthcare LCC d/b/a Bria of Palos Hills and PM Nursing and

Rehabilitation LLC (collectively Bria), alleging they provided negligent care to his mother.

The parties agreed to mediation, and when they did not settle, the mediator said she would

continue working with them to reach an agreement.

¶6 On February 12, 2025, Bria emailed Manzili’s attorney offering $243,927.20, the

remainder of their insurance policy limits. The attorney rejected the offer, stating he only had

authority to accept $300,000. After further negotiations, Bria agreed to pay $300,000 and

informed the mediator of their settlement. An email from the mediator to the attorneys

confirmed the settlement.

¶7 After Manzili refused to sign the settlement agreement and release, Bria filed a motion to

enforce. Manzili did not respond. After a hearing at which Manzili’s attorney appeared, the

trial court entered an order granting the motion. The court found that Manzili authorized his

attorney to settle for $300,000, never revoked that authority, and that the parties agreed to settle

-2- 1-25-0555

for $300,000, which the mediator confirmed. The trial court ordered Manzili to sign the

settlement agreement and the release within seven days or the court would sign them on his

behalf. Manzili appealed, and the trial court stayed its order pending the appeal.

¶8 Analysis

¶9 Settlement agreements are governed by contract law. K4 Enterprises, Inc. v. Grater, Inc.,

394 Ill. App. 3d 307, 313 (2009). “Oral agreements are binding so long as there is an offer, an

acceptance, and a meeting of the minds as to the terms of the agreement.” Id. Where, as here,

the trial court’s decision to enforce a settlement agreement is made on the motion, pleadings,

and attachments, without an evidentiary hearing, our review is de novo. City of Chicago v.

Ramirez, 366 Ill. App. 3d 935, 946 (2006).

¶ 10 As a preliminary matter, Bria moved to strike Manzili’s reply brief for failing to comply

with Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020), by failing to include citations to legal

authority or the record and with Supreme Court Rule 341(j), which requires a reply brief to be

confined strictly to arguments presented in the appellees’ brief.

¶ 11 Compliance with Rule 341 is mandatory for all litigants, including self-represented

litigants. Matlock v. Illinois Department of Employment Security, 2019 IL App (1st) 180645,

¶ 14. Manzili’s initial and reply briefs fail to comply with Rule 341(h). We may strike a brief

and dismiss an appeal for failing to comply with the rules. McCann v. Dart, 2015 IL App (1st)

141291, ¶ 12. But because we have the benefit of Bria’s cogent brief, we deny the motion to

strike and elect to address the appeal’s merits. Burrell v. The Village of Sauk Village, 2017 IL

App (1st) 163392, ¶ 14 (striking brief “harsh sanction and is appropriate only when the

violations hinder our review.”).

-3- 1-25-0555

¶ 12 Turning to the merits, Manzili’s sole contention is that the trial court erred because Manzili

withdrew his attorney’s authority to settle. Specifically, he alleges that during the original

mediation, his attorney texted him that Bria had increased its offer to $200,000, that he had

until 5:00 p.m. to accept it, and that “if you change your mind, let me know.” Manzili

responded that he and his sister were rejecting the offer and wanted to take the case to trial.

The initial record on appeal did not include a copy of this text exchange, but the trial court

granted Manzili’s motion to supplement the record on appeal.

¶ 13 Bria contends the trial court should not have allowed Manzili to supplement the record and

asks us to strike the email document or Manzili’s argument that relies on it.

¶ 14 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 329 allows a party to supplement a record on appeal to supply

omissions, to correct errors, and to settle controversies about whether the record accurately

reflects what occurred in the trial court. Ill. S. Ct. R. 329 (eff. Jan. 1, 2024). Under the rule, the

record may only be supplemented with documents that were before the trial court. Kuykendall

v. Schneidewind, 2017 IL App (5th) 160013, ¶ 29 (citing Deason v. Gutzler, 251 Ill.App.3d

630, 631 (1993).

¶ 15 Manzili has not shown the text exchange was before the trial court. The copy in the

supplemental record does not bear a stamp showing he filed it in the trial court. Further, the

trial court order granting Bria’s motion to enforce the judgment does not mention the text

exchange and Manzili did not file a report of proceedings from the hearing on the motion that

would indicate he raised the text. Thus, nothing in the record indicates that the trial judge was

aware of the text exchange during the hearing nor may be assume or speculate that it was.

Accordingly, the law requires that we not consider it. See People v. Brown, 249 Ill. App. 3d

-4- 1-25-0555

986, 994 (1993) ("It is an elementary principle that an appellate court cannot consider matters

outside the record.")

¶ 16 As noted, settlement agreements are governed by contract law. K4 Enterprises, Inc. 394

Ill. App. 3d at 313. “A meeting of the minds exists whenever the parties’ conduct objectively

indicates an agreement to the terms of the settlement, even if one or more parties did not

subjectively intend to be bound.” County Line Nurseries & Landscaping, Inc., ex rel.

Bankruptcy Trustee v. Glencoe Park District, 2015 IL App (1st) 143776, ¶ 33.

¶ 17 Manzili does not refute that he authorized his attorney to accept a $300,000 settlement

offer. Indeed, the record includes an email from Manzili’s attorney to Bria’s attorney stating

he had authority to settle for $300,000. Because the record contains no evidence that Manzili

withheld or revoked his attorney’s authority to settle, the parties had a meeting of the minds,

and the trial court did not err in approving the settlement agreement.

¶ 18 Affirmed.

-5-