Consumer Fraud; Home Construction Style of Case: Gail Herzog v. Thiems Construction Co. Client: Thiems Construction Co. Trial End Date: 6/17/2002 Court: Madison County, Edwardsville, Illinois Type of Case: Consumer Fraud; Home Construction Judge: The Honorable George Moran, Jr. Reed Armstrong Lawyer who tried the case: Stephen C. Mudge Jury Verdict Bench Trial After a six-day bench trial, Madison County Circuit Judge George Moran, Jr. entered a verdict in favor of the defendant, Thiems Construction Co. The plaintiff had alleged the defendant had violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act with regard to a construction of her home which had an estimated value of in excess of 1 million dollars. On the first day of trial, the plaintiff’s attorney dismissed all the counts of case which would have been tried to a jury leaving only the consumer fraud allegations, which under Illinois law, are bench tried. Leroy Dawson testified as an expert witness on behalf of the plaintiff, and Attorney Mudge’s cross-examination of him was particularly effective. The court entered judgment in favor of the defendant after taking the matter under advisement. Special Features Attorney Mudge’s cross-examination of plainnff’s expert has been transcribed and established the unreliability of the expert’s opinions. Appellate Court, Fifth District, Affirms Trial Court Judgment in Favor of Defendant The Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, with Justices Welch, Chapman and Maag concurring, has affirmed the trial court judgment in favor of the defendant, Thiems Construction Company, Inc., in this case. Defendant Thiems was represented by a partner in the firm, Stephen Mudge. The plaintiff raised eight issues on appeal and the Appellate Court rejected each argument advanced by the plaintiff. The Appellate Court, in its Order, found that in order to maintain a cause of action under the consumer Fraud Act, the plaintiff must show (1) a deceptive act or practice by the defendant, (2) the defendant's intent that the plaintiff rely on the deception, (3) the occurrence of the deception in the course of conduct involving trade or commerce, and (4) actual damages caused by the defendant. Furthermore, the plaintiff had advanced arguments that the failure to have a written contract on a construction project is prima facia evidence of a deceptive practice. The Appellate Court rejected this argument and affirmed the long-standing rule of law that an oral contract may be entered into for the construction of a home or building. The underlying case was tried before the Honorable Judge George J. Moran. The trial court decision and the Appellate Court decision shows that cases can be tried and won in this venue. Additional Information Last Demand: Pretrial - $250,000.00 At Trial - $500,000.00 Verdict: Defendants verdict     © 2002 Reed, Armstrong, Gorman, Mudge & Morrissey