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.

Manella v. First National Bank & Trust Co.

Citations: 173 Ill. App. 3d 436; 526 N.E.2d 368; 122 Ill. Dec. 109; 1988 Ill. App. LEXIS 469Docket: No. 2—87—0361

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; April 14, 1988; Illinois; State Appellate Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
William Manella appeals a trial court ruling favoring Janice Bianchi and dismissing First National Bank from the case. Bianchi cross-appeals the court's decision on her counterclaim. Manella raises five issues: 1) denial of a continuance for his testimony; 2) exclusion of attorney James Bolz's testimony; 3) dismissal of the bank as a defendant; 4) judgment against him on his conversion claim; and 5) prohibition of his attorney's closing argument. Bianchi contends the court erred by neglecting her unrebutted testimony and denying her counterclaim.

Manella's original complaint, filed on August 27, 1982, included Bianchi, the bank as trustee, and the Samatas as defendants, alleging Bianchi became the sole owner of a house in October 1981 and that he provided her $27,500 to cover mortgage arrears with the expectation of a mortgage in return. Bianchi later transferred her interest to the Samatas without fulfilling this agreement. She countered by claiming the money was given in exchange for a promise to move in together in Florida, which she did for three months until leaving due to threats from Manella. 

Manella's amended complaint, filed on November 22, 1985, sought an injunction against the bank, an equitable lien, and repayment of $10,000 he lent Bianchi, along with damages for personal property valued at $70,550 that she allegedly took. At trial, Bianchi was the sole witness, and an attempt by Manella to introduce Bolz's testimony was blocked due to attorney-client privilege. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the Samatas and all defendants on the conversion claim, with the judge stating neither party proved their case adequately. Manella filed an appeal while Bianchi cross-appealed.

Plaintiff's issues Nos. 1, 4, and 5, along with the denial of Bianchi's counterclaim, will not be considered, as the case requires a retrial. The plaintiff has not appealed the directed finding favoring the Samatas, the new beneficial owners of the property, who are not part of this appeal. The plaintiff's third issue claims the court erred in dismissing the bank as a defendant. However, the bank has not submitted a brief, and the plaintiff's request for an injunction to prevent the transfer of beneficial interest seems futile since the Samatas are no longer parties, and the plaintiff has abandoned his claim for an equitable lien. Bianchi remains liable for the $27,500, but the plaintiff has not shown that monetary damages are insufficient, which is necessary for equitable relief under Illinois law.

The plaintiff's second contention involves the trial court's refusal to allow Bolz to testify or further examine Bianchi about a January 1982 meeting. The defendant argues that Bolz's testimony is protected by attorney-client privilege. Relevant testimony portions reveal a close relationship between Bianchi and the plaintiff, including assistance in property transactions and payments towards a mortgage, but no foreclosure occurred despite threats from a second mortgage holder. The testimony clarifies the timeline and interactions between the parties involved.

In January 1982, a conversation occurred between Janice Bianchi and William Manella in the presence of attorney James M. Bolz, following which an argument ensued that lasted approximately 20 to 30 minutes. After the argument, Manella handed Bolz $23,000 with instructions to prepare a mortgage. Bolz assured them he would draft the mortgage and mail it to Florida, although he did not receive an executed copy back. The defendant’s attorney objected to Bolz’s testimony on the grounds of attorney-client privilege, claiming that Manella acted as an agent for Bianchi in the transaction. The court upheld this objection, concluding that Bianchi was present as Manella's agent. However, the plaintiff's attorney contested this ruling, leading to an offer of proof detailing the transaction and asserting Bolz acted as attorney for both parties.

The court found that the presence of both Bianchi and Manella did not negate privilege, but it erred in concluding that Bianchi was solely Manella's agent. The appellate court determined that Bolz represented both parties in drafting the mortgage, thus reversing the trial court’s ruling regarding attorney-client privilege and remanding for a new trial, excluding prior dismissals regarding certain defendants.