Lardas et al v. Grcic et al

Filing 71

Opinion and Order: Plaintiff Lardas's motion for reconsideration 62 is denied. Signed by the Honorable William T. Hart on 3/24/2015:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

PATTI LARDAS,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
) No. 14 C 193
)
SLAVKO DRCIC. MILOVAN GRCIC,
)
DRAZA GRCIC, THOMAS J. KARACIC )
and AMALGAMATED BANK of
)
CHICAGO, an Illinois Banking
)
Corporation,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
Danny Christofalos,
)
)
Debtor-Appellant.
)
)
v.
) No. 14 C 6958
)
Joseph E. Cohen, Chapter 7 Trustee,
)
Appeal from the United States
)
Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ill.
Appellee.
)
No. 13 B 47319
)___________________________

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court were two cases involving related issues: Lardas v.
Grcic, 14 C 193 ("Lardas"), alleging fraud and breach of contract claims, and In

re Christofalos, 14 C 6958 ("Christofalos"), a debtor's appeal from a decision of
the Bankruptcy Court permitting the bankruptcy Trustee to sell an asset of the
bankruptcy estate, the Debtor's 99% interest in Wauconda Shopping Plaza LLC
("WSP LLC"), which owns the Wauconda Shopping Plaza (the "Plaza"). The
Debtor, Danny Christofalos, objected to the sale, contending his entire interest in
WSP LLC is an exempt asset. In Lardas, plaintiff Patti Lardas (Christofalos's
aunt) alleged that she was fraudulently induced to enter into a settlement of two
lawsuits (Grcic v. Christofalos, No. 09 CH 1789 (Lake Cy. Ill. Cir. Ct.), and
Lardas v. Grcic, No. 11 C 4258 (N.D. Ill.)) involving claims made by and against
her and Christofalos involving the Plaza, WSP LLC, and other properties and
entities. Christofalos had also been a plaintiff in Lardas, but his claims were
dismissed without prejudice based on a holding that the claims belonged to the
bankruptcy estate.
In a ruling dated January 29, 2015, see Lardas v. Grcic, 2015 WL
444321 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 29, 2015), Lardas was dismissed without prejudice for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that Lardas lacked standing to bring
the action. In the same ruling, the Bankruptcy Court's approval of the sale of WSP
LLC in Christofalos was affirmed. In each case, a judgment was entered on the

-2-

docket on January 30, 2015. On February 7, 2015, Lardas and Christofalos jointly
filed a motion to reconsider. While the caption of both cases was on the
reconsideration motion, it was only docketed in Lardas. After being directed to
do so by the court, on February 27, 2015, Christofalos docketed the motion in
Christofalos as well. Since the joint motion was docketed in both cases within
28 days of the January 30, 2015 entries of judgment, the motion is considered to
be a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion in both cases. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Ho v.
Taflove, 648 F.3d 489, 495 nn. 4-5 (7th Cir. 2011); Singh v. Kemper, 2015 WL
1014659 *1 (E.D. Wis. March 9, 2015).1
In Lardas, it was held that Lardas received the consideration provided
for her in the settlement, which was the dismissal of the claims against her in the
pertinent lawsuits. The consideration she provided was the dismissal of the claims
she made in the lawsuits. On reconsideration, Lardas contends that Christofalos's
receipt of WSP LLC as part of the settlement made him a third-party beneficiary of
her agreement to dismiss her claims and Christofalos being deprived of that

1

Since Christofalos docketed the motion in Christofalos on the 28th day,
it is unnecessary to determine whether docketing the motion in Lardas only within
28 days would have been sufficient for a timely Rule 59(e) motion in Christofalos.
Cf. In re Mangum, 2006 WL 3626775 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 07, 2006) (discussing
timeliness of notice of appeal docketed in the wrong case).

-3-

property deprived Lardas of the full benefit that she expected from entering into
the settlement. Christofalos, however, was himself a party to the settlement.
Christofalos alone had standing to claim the deprivation of WSP LLC, which was
consideration provided to him, not Lardas, in the settlement. However, since
Christofalos is currently in bankruptcy, the bankruptcy Trustee in his stead has
standing to bring the claim on behalf of the bankruptcy estate. Reconsideration in
Lardas will be denied.
As to Christofalos, it was held inter alia that Debtor was not being
deprived of the $1.00 exemption he had claimed in WSP LLC; the evidence before
the bankruptcy court did not support the existence of fraud that would make the
sale one in bad faith; and Debtor presented no sufficient basis for overturning the
Bankruptcy court's finding that the sale was in good faith. On reconsideration,
Christofalos contends this court must accept as true the allegations of fraud in the
Amended Complaint in Lardas. The Bankruptcy Court held a hearing regarding
approval of the sale. There is no basis for holding that, in making findings based
on evidence, the Court was bound to accept as true allegations made in another
case. The Bankruptcy Court was not ruling on a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in Lardas. As previously held, no sufficient basis has been presented

-4-

for overturning the findings of the Bankruptcy Court. Reconsideration will be
denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that (1) in 14 C 193, plaintiff Lardas's
motion for reconsideration [62] is denied and (2) in 14 C 6958, debtor-appellant's
motion for reconsideration [18] is denied.

ENTER:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: MARCH 24, 2015