2015 IL App (1st) 142789 No. 1-14-2789 Opinion filed March 31, 2015
FIFTH DIVISION
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT
ROBERT M. SUSMAN, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Cook County. Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) 2014 L 2839 ) NORTH STAR TRUST COMPANY, ) The Honorable ) Patrick J. Sherlock, Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE GORDON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Palmer and Justice Reyes concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 In this appeal, plaintiff Robert M. Susman appeals from the trial court's
grant of defendant North Star Trust Company's forum non conveniens motion to
transfer this case from Cook County to Lake County. The underlying case
concerns the transfer of an interest in real property located in Lake County. For No. 1-14-2789
the following reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in granting the forum non conveniens motion and we affirm.
¶2 BACKGROUND
¶3 Plaintiff brought this action against defendant seeking damages caused
by defendant's alleged breach of fiduciary duty in defendant's role as the trustee
for land trust No. 1570, created May 20, 1961 (the land trust).
¶4 The real estate at issue is located in Lake County, and title to it was
placed in the land trust by Matt and Angeline Susman on May 20, 1961, by a
deed recorded in Lake County. Thereafter, Matt and Angeline Susman died and
their two sons, Robert and Donald Susman, became the beneficiaries of the land
trust. Robert Susman is the plaintiff in the instant action. After Donald
Susman's death, a probate proceeding was commenced in the circuit court of
Lake County.
¶5 In the instant action, plaintiff alleges that in March 2009, defendant,
which was the entity administering the land trust, erroneously issued two trustee
deeds conveying trust property from the land trust, of which plaintiff was a
beneficiary, to the executor of the estate of Donald Susman. It is this transfer
which forms the basis of plaintiff's one-count complaint for breach of fiduciary
duty.
2 No. 1-14-2789
¶6 Before answering or otherwise responding to the complaint, defendant
moved to transfer the case from Cook County to Lake County pursuant to the
doctrine of forum non conveniens. On August 12, 2014, the trial court granted
defendant's motion; and on September 11, 2014, plaintiff filed a petition
seeking leave of this court to appeal this decision. On October 10, 2014, we
granted plaintiff's petition, and this appeal followed.
¶7 ANALYSIS
¶8 In this interlocutory appeal, plaintiff appeals the trial court's grant of
defendant's forum non conveniens motion to transfer the case from Cook
County to Lake County. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶9 I. Interlocutory Appeal
¶ 10 Defendant moved the trial court pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule
187 (eff. Jan. 4, 2013) to transfer this case from Cook County to Lake County.
Rule 187(a) provides: "A motion to dismiss or transfer the action under the
doctrine of forum non conveniens must be filed by a party not later than 90 days
after the last day allowed for the filing of that party's answer." Ill. S. Ct. R.
187(a) (eff. Jan. 4, 2013). If the trial court orders an "[i]ntrastate transfer of
action," the "clerk of the court from which a transfer is granted to another
circuit court in this State on the ground of forum non conveniens shall
immediately certify and transmit to the clerk of the court to which the transfer is
3 No. 1-14-2789
ordered the originals of all documents filed in the case together with copies of
all orders entered therein." Ill. S. Ct. R. 187(c) (eff. Jan. 4, 2013). The rule
further provides: "The clerk of the court to which the transfer is ordered shall
file the documents and transcript transmitted to him or her and docket the case,
and the action shall proceed and be determined as if it had originated in that
court." Ill. S. Ct. R. 187(c) (eff. Jan. 4, 2013).
¶ 11 Since the trial court ordered an intrastate transfer, this is an interlocutory
appeal, taken pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306 (eff. July 1, 2014).
Rule 306 permits a party to petition the appellate court for leave to appeal "an
order of the circuit court allowing or denying a motion to dismiss on the
grounds of forum non conveniens, or from an order of the circuit court allowing
or denying a motion to transfer a case to another county within this State on
such grounds." Ill. S. Ct. R. 306(a)(2) (eff. July 1, 2014). On October 10, 2014,
this court granted plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal, and this appeal
followed.
¶ 12 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(c)(1) (eff. July 1, 2014) requires the
petition to be accompanied by a supporting record, as that term is defined by
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 328 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994). Rule 328 permits a
"supporting record" to be authenticated either by a certificate of the circuit court
clerk or "by the affidavit of the attorney or party filing it." Ill. S. Ct. R. 328
4 No. 1-14-2789
(eff. Feb. 1, 1994). In the case at bar, the supporting record was authenticated
by an attorney's affidavit. After the petition was granted, this court did not order
plaintiff to file a record, as permitted by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(c)(6)
(eff. July 1, 2014). Defendant then filed a supplementary supporting record, as
permitted by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(c)(2) (eff. July 1, 2014). Thus,
this appeal is based on the supporting records filed by both plaintiff and
defendant.
¶ 13 II. Standard of Review
¶ 14 The standard of review for a forum non conveniens decision is abuse of
discretion. Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 219 Ill. 2d 430, 441
(2006).
¶ 15 "Forum non conveniens is an equitable doctrine founded in
considerations of fundamental fairness and the sensible and effective
administration of justice." Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 441 (citing Vinson v.
Allstate, 144 Ill. 2d 306, 310 (1991)). "This doctrine allows a trial court to
decline jurisdiction when trial in another forum 'would better serve the ends of
justice.' " Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 441 (quoting Vinson, 144 Ill. 2d at 310).
"Forum non conveniens is applicable when the choice is between interstate
forums as well as when the choice is between intrastate forums," such as in the
5 No. 1-14-2789
case at bar. Glass v. DOT Transportation, Inc., 393 Ill. App. 3d 829, 832
(2009).
¶ 16 "A trial court is afforded considerable discretion in ruling on a forum non
conveniens motion." Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 441. "We will reverse the
circuit court's decision only if defendants have shown that the circuit court
abused its discretion in balancing the relevant factors." Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d
at 442 (citing Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167, 176-77 (2003)).
"A circuit court abuses its discretion in balancing the relevant factors only
where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the circuit court."
Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 442 (citing Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 177); Glass, 393
Ill. App. 3d at 832.
¶ 17 Despite the fact that a discretionary standard is well established for this
equitable doctrine, plaintiff argues that our standard of review should be de
novo, because the trial court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing. In support
of this argument, plaintiff cites Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 227 Ill. 2d
147, 154 (2007), which was a choice-of-law case. In Townsend, our supreme
court observed: "It is generally held that a trial court's choice-of-law
determination is reviewed de novo." Townsend, 227 Ill. 2d at 153. Even after
defendant in its response brief criticized plaintiff for failing to cite a forum non
6 No. 1-14-2789
conveniens case to support this point, plaintiff did not provide a cite to a forum
non conveniens case in his reply brief.
¶ 18 We are not persuaded to deviate from the well-established standard by
one cite to a choice-of-law case. "The issue, then, is not what decision we
would have reached if we were reviewing the facts on a clean slate, but whether
the trial court acted in a way that no reasonable person would." Vivas v. The
Boeing Co., 392 Ill. App. 3d 644, 657 (2009).
¶ 19 III. Plaintiff's Choice of Forum
¶ 20 "Before weighing the relevant factors, a court must first decide how
much deference to give to a plaintiff's choice of forum." Vivas, 392 Ill. App. 3d
at 657 (citing Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 448 (the supreme court determined the
appropriate amount of deference before weighing the relevant factors)).
¶ 21 Normally, the plaintiff's choice of forum is a substantial factor in
deciding a forum non conveniens motion. Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 172; Vivas, 392
Ill. App. 3d at 657. However, where the plaintiff chooses a forum other than
where he resides, his choice is not entitled to the same weight. Dawdy, 207 Ill.
2d at 173-76; Vivas, 392 Ill. App. 3d at 657.
¶ 22 Plaintiff argues that, although he did not choose his home forum, his
choice is entitled to substantial deference and he cites in support both First
American Bank v. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d 511, 517 (2002), and Glass v. DOT
7 No. 1-14-2789
Transportation, Inc., 393 Ill. App. 3d 829, 832 (2009). In Guerine, our
supreme court explained: " 'When the home forum is chosen, it is reasonable to
assume that the choice is convenient. When the plaintiff is foreign to the forum
chosen, however, the assumption is much less reasonable and the plaintiff's
choice deserves less deference.' " Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 517 (quoting Wieser v.
Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 98 Ill. 2d 359, 367 (1983)).
¶ 23 In Glass, also cited by plaintiff, this court stated: "While the deference to
be accorded a plaintiff as to his choice of forum is less when the plaintiff
chooses a forum other than where he resides, ' "the deference to be accorded is
only less, as opposed to none." ' " (Emphases in original.) Glass, 393 Ill. App.
3d at 834 (quoting Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 518, quoting Elling v. State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 291 Ill. App. 3d 311, 318 (1997)).
¶ 24 Thus, plaintiff's choice of a foreign forum receives "some deference" but
less deference than if he had chosen his home forum. Vivas, 392 Ill. App. 3d at
657-58.
¶ 25 IV. Private Interest Factors
¶ 26 The Illinois Supreme Court has held that a court must consider both "the
private and public interest factors" in deciding a forum non conveniens motion.
Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443; Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 172-73; see also Vivas,
392 Ill. App. 3d at 658. The private interest factors include: " '(1) the
8 No. 1-14-2789
convenience of the parties; (2) the relative ease of access to sources of
testimonial, documentary, and real evidence; and (3) all other practical
problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive.' "
Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443 (quoting Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 516); Dawdy,
207 Ill. 2d at 172; see also Vivas, 392 Ill. App. 3d at 658.
¶ 27 First, the convenience of the parties does not strongly favor either county.
Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443. Since defendant is seeking the transfer to Lake
County, the convenience of defendant and the witnesses under its control fades
as an issue. One party cannot argue the other party's convenience. Vivas, 392
Ill. App. 3d at 658. As for plaintiff, his complaint states that "his principal
place of residence" is in "Waukegan, Illinois," which is in Lake County. Hence,
plaintff cannot be heard to complain that his home forum is inconvenient unless
other factors are at issue.
¶ 28 Second, the relative ease of access to sources of testimonial, documentary
and real evidence does not indicate that the trial court abused its discretion.
Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443. Plaintiff's appellate brief argues that "all
documents, custodians and witnesses are located in the Cook County corporate
headquarters of Defendant-Appellant North Star." However, defendant, as a
party, is under an obligation to produce its employees and relevant documents,
whether the suit proceeds in Lake or Cook County. Supreme Court Rule
9 No. 1-14-2789
201(b)(1) provides that "a party may obtain by discovery full disclosure
regarding any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending
action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking disclosure
or of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody,
condition, and location of any documents or tangible things, and the identity
and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts." Ill. S. Ct. R.
201(b)(1) (eff. July 1, 2014). Supreme Court Rule 204 provides: "Service of
notice of the taking of the deposition of a party or person who is currently an
officer, director, or employee of a party is sufficient to require the appearance
of the deponent and the production of any documents or tangible things listed in
the notice." Ill. S. Ct. R. 204(a)(3) (eff. July 1, 2014). If a party refuses to
comply with discovery rules or orders, a court in either Cook County or Lake
County is fully empowered to enforce them. Ill. S. Ct. R. 219 (eff. July 1,
2002) ("Consequences of Refusal to Comply with Rules or Order Relating to
Discovery or Pretrial Conferences").
¶ 29 In addition, "the location of documents, records and photographs has
become a less significant factor in forum non conveniens analysis in the modern
age of e-mail, Internet, telefax, copying machines and world-wide delivery
services, since they can now be easily copied and sent." Vivas, 392 Ill. App. 3d
10 No. 1-14-2789
at 659 (citing Woodward v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 368 Ill. App. 3d 827,
834 (2006)).
¶ 30 Thus, consideration of the ease of access does not indicate an abuse of
discretion by the trial court.
¶ 31 Third, consideration of " 'all other practical problems that make trial of a
case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive' " also does not indicate an abuse of
discretion. Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443 (quoting Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 516);
Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 172; see also Vivas, 392 Ill. App. 3d at 658. This court,
which is located in Chicago, Cook County, may take judicial notice of the fact
that Lake County is adjacent to Cook County and that many people commute
every day from Lake County to work in Chicago. Ill. R. Evid. 201(b) (eff. Jan.
1, 2011) ("A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable
dispute in that it is *** generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the
trial court ***."); Ill. R. Evid. 201(c) (eff. Jan. 1, 2011) ("A court may take
judicial notice, whether requested or not."). The close proximity of the two
counties, and the many roads and trains between the two, reduces any practical
problems. Spiegelman v. Victory Memorial Hospital, 392 Ill. App. 3d 826, 844
(2009) (observing "the close proximity of Lake County to Cook County");
Huffman v. Inland Oil & Transport Co., 98 Ill. App. 3d 1010, 1018 (1981)
("arguments regarding convenience to the parties and the witnesses [are] of
11 No. 1-14-2789
little merit where the Missouri forum suggested by defendant was only 15 miles
from the chosen forum").
¶ 32 Thus, consideration of the private factors does not lead us to conclude
that the trial court abused its discretion.
¶ 33 V. Public Factors
¶ 34 When deciding a forum non conveniens motion, a court must also
consider the public interest factors. These factors include: "(1) the interest in
deciding controversies locally; (2) the unfairness of imposing trial expense and
the burden of jury duty on residents of a forum that has little connection to the
litigation; and (3) the administrative difficulties presented by adding litigation
to already congested court dockets." Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443-44 (citing
Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 516-17); Gridley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Co., 217 Ill. 2d 158, 170 (2005); Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 173. See also
Vivas, 392 Ill. App. 3d at 660.
¶ 35 At the heart of this issue is the proper ownership of land in Lake County
and a deed filed in Lake County. Thus, "the interest in deciding controversies
locally" and the fairness in imposing a burden and expense on residents of a
forum with a "connection to the litigation" favors Lake County. Langenhorst,
219 Ill. 2d at 443.
12 No. 1-14-2789
¶ 36 In its August 12, 2014, order, the trial court observed: "The parties do
not contest that the dockets in Lake County are less congested than the dockets
in Cook County." Although "[c]ourt congestion is a relatively insignificant
factor," it is still a factor. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 517. Plaintiff did not argue in
the court below or before this court that Cook County is less congested, nor
could he. Hackl v. Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp., 382 Ill. App. 3d 442,
453 (2008) ("we recognize that Cook County does have more cases filed than
Lake County and also takes more time for those cases to reach verdict"). Cf.
Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 525 (observing that "Cook County circuit court is more
congested" than other Illinois county circuit courts).
¶ 37 An examination of both the private and public factors does not support a
conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion. Thus, we must affirm.
¶ 38 VI. Pending Discovery
¶ 39 Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred by ruling on defendant's
forum non conveniens motion when defendant's discovery responses were
outstanding.
¶ 40 Defendant responds that plaintiff failed to raise this argument in the trial
court and thus it is waived.
¶ 41 It is well established that issues not raised in the trial court are waived
and may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Cholipski v. Bovis Lend
13 No. 1-14-2789
Lease, Inc., 2014 IL App (1st) 132842, ¶ 58. This rule applies to interlocutory
appeals, such as the instant appeal (Cholipski, 2014 IL App (1st) 132842, ¶ 58
(citing IPF Recovery Co. v. Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund, 356 Ill. App. 3d
658, 659 (2005))); to civil cases (Cholipski, 2014 IL App (1st) 132842, ¶ 58
(citing Werner v. Botti, Marinaccio & DeSalvo, 205 Ill. App. 3d 673, 677
(1990))); and even to constitutional arguments (Cholipski, 2014 IL App (1st)
132842, ¶ 58 (citing Connor v. City of Chicago, 354 Ill. App. 3d 381, 386
(2004))).
¶ 42 In his reply brief, plaintiff does not claim that he had raised this argument
before the trial court. Thus, we conclude that this argument is waived.
¶ 43 Plaintiff also claims that the trial court erred by not deciding his motion
for leave to file an amended complaint before deciding defendant's forum non
conveniens motion. Plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint instanter
was filed on August 11, 2014, only the day before defendant's forum non
conveniens motion was set for hearing. Defendant's motion had been set for an
August 12, 2014, hearing date several months before, in an order dated June 12,
2014, and had been fully briefed.
¶ 44 Plaintiff also claimed that the trial court erred by allegedly failing to
consider his motion to strike certain misstatements of fact in defendant's reply
brief before deciding defendant's forum non conveniens motion. As with
14 No. 1-14-2789
plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint, this motion was also filed the
day before the August 12, 2014, hearing date.
¶ 45 Plaintiff argues that the trial court's failure to consider his flurry of last-
minute motions is grounds for reversing the trial court's forum non conveniens
decision. However, in support of this point, plaintiff fails to cite a single case,
rule or statute or to make a reasoned legal argument for an extension of existing
law. A reviewing court is under no obligation to consider an argument where a
party "has failed to provide any legal authority" for it. Tyrka v. Glenview Ridge
Condominium Ass'n, 2014 IL App (1st) 132762, ¶ 39. "This court has
repeatedly held that a party waives a point by failing to argue it." Lozman v.
Putnam, 379 Ill. App. 3d 807, 824 (2008). See People v. Ward, 215 Ill. 2d 317,
332 (2005) ("point raised in a brief but not supported by citation to relevant
authority *** is therefore forfeited"); In re Marriage of Bates, 212 Ill. 2d 489,
517 (2004) ("A reviewing court is entitled to have issues clearly defined with
relevant authority cited."); Roiser v. Cascade Mountain, Inc., 367 Ill. App. 3d
559, 568 (2006) (by failing to offer supporting legal authority or any reasoned
argument, plaintiffs waived consideration of their theory for asserting personal
jurisdiction over defendants); Ferguson v. Bill Berger Associates, Inc., 302 Ill.
App. 3d 61, 78 (1998) ("it is not necessary to decide this question since the
defendant has waived the issue" by failing to offer case citation or other support
15 No. 1-14-2789
as Supreme Court Rule 341 requires); Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Feb. 6, 2013)
(argument in appellate brief must be supported by citation to legal authority and
factual record).
¶ 46 CONCLUSION
¶ 47 For the foregoing reasons, we cannot find that the trial court abused its
discretion by granting defendant's forum non conveniens motion, and thus we
must affirm.
¶ 48 In sum, we cannot find an abuse of discretion: where defendant seeks to
transfer the suit to plaintiff's home forum; where plaintiff claims that "all
documents, custodians and witnesses" are within defendant's control; where the
two counties in question are adjacent to each other; where the underlying issue
concerns the ownership of real property in the transferee forum; and where,
lastly and least importantly, the court docket in the transferee forum is less
congested.
¶ 49 Affirmed.