Perlstein v. Wolk

Summary

The Illinois Supreme Court held that plaintiffs' legal malpractice action was timely notwithstanding the court's earlier determination that Public Act 89-7 was unconstitutional and void in its entirety. The court declined to apply the void ab initio doctrine strictly, concluding that equitable considerations and plaintiffs' good-faith reliance on the statute justified allowing the action to proceed. The court affirmed the appellate court's reversal of the trial court's dismissal.

Holdings

1. The void ab initio doctrine is not subject to strict application in every civil case. Although the doctrine remains applicable when constitutionally guaranteed rights require vindication, courts may consider equitable and practical factors in other circumstances to ameliorate its harsh effects.
2. When a judicial decision changes the applicable limitations or repose period and otherwise instantly bars a claim, the claimant must be afforded a reasonable period of time to file suit.
3. Plaintiffs' complaint was filed within a reasonable period following Best and was not time-barred.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the void ab initio doctrine required the court to treat the pre-Public Act 89-7 version of section 13-214.3 as continuously operative after Best declared Public Act 89-7 void in its entirety.
2. Whether equitable considerations may ameliorate the harsh effects of the void ab initio doctrine in a civil case where plaintiffs reasonably relied on a presumptively valid statute.
3. Whether plaintiffs filed their malpractice action within a reasonable period after Best changed the applicable limitations and repose law.

Disposition

affirmed