Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Eugene Matanky & Associates, Inc. v. Onixt
Citations: 219 N.E.2d 865; 74 Ill. App. 2d 53; 1966 Ill. App. LEXIS 954Docket: Gen. M-50,908
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; July 29, 1966; Illinois; State Appellate Court
Eugene Matanky Associates, Inc. (plaintiff-appellant) filed a lawsuit against Harold Onixt and Claire Onixt (defendants-appellees) seeking a commission for the sale of real estate. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, leading to an appeal by the plaintiff. Following the judgment, defendants filed a motion to recover expenses and attorney's fees under section 41 of the Civil Practice Act, which allows recovery for untrue statements made without reasonable cause, but this motion was made more than thirty days after the original judgment. The court found that the defendants' motion was untimely, as section 41 requires that claims for costs be made “summarily” at trial or within thirty days thereafter. The defendants argued that they could not determine their expenses until the expiration of the thirty-day period for post-trial motions; however, the court referenced previous cases (Adams v. Silfen, Boss v. Coe Inv. Co., and People ex rel. Madison Chemical Corp. v. Gurrie) which established that motions for costs must be filed within thirty days to avoid loss of jurisdiction. The court concluded that while a party could seek to retain jurisdiction for determining further expenses, a motion under section 41 must be filed within thirty days post-judgment to be valid. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, ruling that the defendants' request for expenses was not timely. The opinion was delivered by Justice Schwartz, with concurrence from Presiding Judge Sullivan and Judge Dempsey.