You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Liebovich Steel & Aluminum Co. v. Advance Iron Works, Inc.

Citations: 818 N.E.2d 895; 353 Ill. App. 3d 311; 288 Ill. Dec. 960; 2004 Ill. App. LEXIS 1361Docket: 2-04-0279

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; November 10, 2004; Illinois; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this appellate case, the defendant, Advance Iron Works, Inc., challenged a trial court's decision to strike its notice of rejection of an arbitration award favoring the plaintiff, Liebovich Steel and Aluminum Company. The primary legal issue centered around compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 93(a), which mandates payment of a rejection fee corresponding to the amount of the arbitration award. The defendant, having paid an incorrect fee based on erroneous guidance from a court clerk, failed to meet this requirement, resulting in the trial court's entry of judgment on the arbitration award. The defendant's subsequent motion to vacate the judgment was denied. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, underscoring the necessity of strict compliance with Rule 93(a) and noting the defendant's inability to challenge the arbitration award's merits due to procedural noncompliance. The appellate court also highlighted the importance of providing a complete trial record on appeal to substantiate claims of error. Ultimately, the judgment of the circuit court of Winnebago County was upheld, affirming the arbitration award in favor of the plaintiff.

Legal Issues Addressed

Consequences of Relying on Court Clerk Advice

Application: The defendant acted on incorrect advice from a deputy court clerk regarding the rejection fee, which led to invalid rejection of the arbitration award.

Reasoning: A party acting on a deputy court clerk's advice does so at their own risk, as established in Hogan. Farwell, Inc. v. Meitz.

Mandatory Compliance with Supreme Court Rule 93(a)

Application: The court emphasized that compliance with Rule 93(a) is mandatory, and the defendant's failure to pay the correct fee invalidated its notice of rejection.

Reasoning: The court conducted a de novo review of the issue, emphasizing that compliance with Rule 93 is mandatory for rejecting an arbitration award.

Requirement for Complete Record on Appeal

Application: The defendant's inability to provide a complete record of the trial court proceedings meant the appellate court presumed lawful conduct by the trial court.

Reasoning: The appellant bears the responsibility to provide a complete record to support claims of error, and without such a record, the court presumes the trial court acted lawfully and based on sufficient facts.

Termination of Arbitration Award Rejection Rights

Application: The defendant's failure to pay the correct rejection fee resulted in the termination of its rights to reject the arbitration award.

Reasoning: Compliance with two requirements—filing a notice of rejection and paying the corresponding fee—within 30 days of the arbitration award is necessary to validly reject the award, as established in Killoren v. Racich.

Waiver of Right to Review Arbitration Merits

Application: Failure to properly reject the arbitration award barred the defendant from challenging the merits of the award.

Reasoning: Since the defendant did not properly reject the award, they cannot pursue trial on the complaint, effectively waiving their right to review the merits of the arbitration.