BURKE & SMITH, CHARTERED, Claimant, v . THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought payment for legal services rendered in fiscal year 1986 under a lapsed appropriation theory. The court dismissed the claim because there was no written contract covering that fiscal year and the court lacked jurisdiction over a quantum meruit claim.

Claim type: Lapsed Appropriation

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

L APSED APPROPRIATIONS-Ckim seeking payment for legal services rendered-luck of written contract-cluim dismissed. Where a law firm brought a lapsed appropriation claim seeking payment for legal services rendered to the State in fiscal year 1986, the claim was dismissed since the parties’ written contract did not cover the year for which payment was sought, and because the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim based on a theory of quantum meruit; but, for purposes of possible future consideration by the General Assembly, the Court determined that, but for the lack of a written contract between the parties covering the period in question, the Claimant would have been entitled to recover its legal fees.

BURKE & SMITH, CHARTERED, pro se, for Claimant. ROLAND W. BURRIS,Attorney General (STEVEN SCHMALL, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

SOMMER, J.

ORDER

SOMMER, J. This cause comes to be heard on the Respondent’s motion to dismiss, due notice having been given, and the Court being advised.

The Claimant, Burke & Smith, Chartered, brought this lapsed appropriation claim seeking $3,157.50 in payment for legal services rendered to the Respondent in fiscal year 1986. The Respondent contends that this claim should be dismissed on the ground that it is barred because the parties’ previous written contract did not cover fiscal year 1986, the year for which payment is sought, and because this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim based on a theory of quantum meruit.

We agree and will dismiss the claim. However, for the purposes of possible consideration of this matter by the General Assembly at some future time, we find that the Respondent has no reason to dispute that the Claimant did provide services to the Respondent, that the Respondent knows of no reason why such services were not satisfactory, that if the claim had been proper, the appropriation account code would be 059-52401-1200- 00-00 and that, but for the lack of a written contract between the parties for fiscal year 1986, the Respondent knows of no reason why it would have not paid the Claimant .

It is hereby ordered that this claim be, and hereby is, dismissed.