In a recent court filing, Edward V. Callico and Vincent G. Callico have lodged an appeal against Melvin N. Callico, Nicholas E. Callico, and Margaret A. Callico concerning the estate of Vincent N. Callico. The complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Clinton County on October 7, 2020, by the plaintiffs, who allege multiple grievances including conversion, fraudulent deceit, and breach of fiduciary duty.
The case revolves around the contentious management and distribution of Vincent N. Callico's estate following his death on April 16, 2019. The plaintiffs argue that there were significant issues with how the defendants handled the estate's affairs. They claim that discovery was incomplete and genuine issues of material fact existed when the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on September 22, 2022.
Edward V. Callico and Vincent G. Callico assert that one critical point overlooked by the court was that Melvin N. Callico had passed away in January 2022, a fact allegedly not disclosed by the defendants' attorney during proceedings. This omission forms part of their argument for why they believe summary judgment was improperly granted.
Over a year of legal wrangling saw numerous status hearings, discovery exchanges, and motions filed by both parties before reaching this stage. On June 25, 2021, defendants sought sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 against the plaintiffs for allegedly failing to conduct reasonable inquiry before filing their pleadings.
The circuit court’s decision to grant summary judgment was influenced by what it described as a lack of clarity in the plaintiffs’ complaint: “Much of [the] Complaint contained references to jurisdictional authority outside the State of Illinois or allegations which were generally unintelligible as relevant to any sustainable cause of action in Illinois.” Despite being given opportunities to amend their complaint or respond adequately to motions for sanctions, plaintiffs’ efforts were deemed insufficient.
On October 20, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider which was denied on February 23, 2023; however, they were allowed time to respond to defendants' motion for Rule 137 sanctions—a motion which was ultimately denied on February 28, 2023.
Further complicating matters is Margaret A. Callico’s subsequent motion filed on August 7, 2023, seeking to strike plaintiffs’ opening brief and impose additional sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375(a) and (b). She argued that plaintiffs failed to comply with procedural rules regarding appellate briefs—specifically Rule 341(h)(6) concerning accurate presentation of facts without argument or comment.
On an appeal filed on May 24th, 2024, Justice Barberis delivered the court’s judgment dismissing the appeal due to these procedural deficiencies: “Plaintiffs’ statement of facts fails to provide this court with an understanding of the case,” rendering it impossible for proper judicial review.
While Margaret’s request for further sanctions under Rule 375(b) was denied—the court finding dismissal sufficient punishment—the ruling underscores strict adherence required in appellate procedures.
The case has been overseen by Judge Stanley M. Brandmeyer in Clinton County Circuit Court under Case No. 20-L-30 with Justice Barberis delivering judgment supported by Justices Moore and Boie concurring.