Background
Mayra Llapapasca Chalco alleged that Eloise Landa and Gerland Properties failed to pay her for July 2016 maintenance and janitorial work and to reimburse expenses under an oral agreement. She sought $16,490.47 for breach of contract or, alternatively, unjust enrichment.
Chalco first sued in 2018 but did not obtain a summons until January 2020. The circuit court dismissed that action without prejudice in October 2024 under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 103(b) for lack of reasonable diligence in serving defendants. Chalco filed this new action in December 2024. The circuit court dismissed it with prejudice as untimely.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed. Claims on an unwritten contract and for unjust enrichment are subject to a five-year limitations period, and Chalco did not dispute that her claims accrued on July 31, 2016. Her December 2024 complaint therefore was filed years after the limitations period expired.
Illinois’s savings statute, section 13-217, did not preserve the refiled complaint. The statute permits refiling after only six specified dispositions, including a voluntary dismissal and a dismissal for want of prosecution. A Rule 103(b) dismissal for lack of diligent service is not among them, even when it is entered without prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- A dismissal without prejudice under Rule 103(b) does not itself create a one-year refiling period.
- Section 13-217 is narrowly limited to its enumerated circumstances.
- A refiled oral-contract or unjust-enrichment claim remains barred when filed after the five-year limitations period.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the procedural effect of a Rule 103(b) dismissal from the statutory grounds that trigger Illinois’s savings statute. Plaintiffs whose cases are dismissed for delayed service cannot rely on the dismissal’s without-prejudice label to revive an otherwise expired claim.