A complex legal battle over the estate of Vincent N. Callico has culminated in a recent appellate court decision that dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal and affirmed the lower court's denial of sanctions and attorney fees for the defendants. The case, filed by Edward V. Callico and Vincent G. Callico in Clinton County on October 7, 2020, against Melvin N. Callico, Nicholas E. Callico, and Margaret A. Callico, involves allegations of conversion, fraudulent deceit, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and interference with inheritance.
The plaintiffs initially filed a six-count pro se complaint alleging various forms of misconduct related to the estate of Vincent N. Callico, who passed away on April 16, 2019. Over the course of more than a year, both parties engaged in extensive litigation involving numerous status hearings, discovery exchanges, and motions. On June 22, 2021, defendants Melvin and Margaret filed a motion for redaction under Rule 138(f)(2), arguing that confidential personal identity information had been disclosed by the plaintiffs. They sought $2260 in attorney fees for redacting these documents.
Plaintiffs responded by asserting that the disclosure was an unintentional oversight rather than willful misconduct. Despite this defense, on January 13, 2022, defendants filed a motion for sanctions under Rule 137 claiming that plaintiffs had used discovery to harass them while filing baseless pleadings.
On September 22, 2022, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants but denied their motions for sanctions and attorney fees under Rules 137 and 138(f)(2). The court found that although there were procedural violations by the plaintiffs—including citing Kentucky law instead of Illinois law—the errors were not intentional or willful as required to impose such penalties.
Margaret subsequently filed a cross-appeal challenging this interpretation of "willful" under Rule 138(f)(2) and arguing that attorney fees should have been awarded regardless of intent behind the rule violation. However, Justice Barberis upheld the lower court's decision stating that without evidence showing intentional misconduct by plaintiffs—who were largely pro se litigants unfamiliar with legal procedures—their actions did not meet the threshold for sanctions or attorney fees.
In their appeal dismissal ruling dated June 12th, Justices Moore and Boie concurred with Justice Barberis' judgment emphasizing adherence to procedural rules while acknowledging difficulties faced by non-lawyers navigating complex legal systems.
Representing themselves initially before later obtaining counsel; Edward V., Lea Ann (Edward’s wife), Dejiah M., John E., Halie A., along with Vincent G., argued against Melvin N., Nicholas E., and Margaret A.—with Judge Stanley M. Brandmeyer presiding over proceedings at Clinton County Circuit Court (Case No:20-L-30).