Understanding the ‘Exhibits Control’ Rule in Illinois litigation A strategy for early dismissal of cases
In Illinois litigation, the ‘Exhibits Control’ Rule is a powerful tool for Defendants aiming for an early case dismissal. According to 735 ILCS 5/2-606, any written document attached to a pleading automatically becomes part of it for all purposes. Illinois courts will not accept allegations as true if they are contradicted by exhibits attached to the complaint. This rule is crucial in motions to dismiss, and it’s something both plaintiffs and defendants need to fully understand while preparing the pleadings.1
Why Exhibits Matter in Pleadings
The main idea behind the Exhibits Control Rule is straightforward. When exhibits are attached to a complaint, they become part of it. If an exhibit contradicts the allegations in the complaint, the exhibit takes precedence. This rule prevents what is called ‘artful pleading,’ where a party might try to avoid the implications of a key document by making opposing claims.2
By giving precedence to the attached exhibit, the rule provides defendants a mechanism to challenge claims at the pleading stage. Where an exhibit contradicts the allegations in the complaint, the exhibit governs and may support dismissal before further litigation.
How Exhibits Play Key Role in a Complaint
As aforesaid, when an exhibit is attached to a complaint, it becomes part of the pleading. When the facts in a complaint conflict with the facts presented in an exhibit, the facts in the exhibit negate the inconsistent allegations, and the court does not have to accept those allegations as true. A party cannot attach a document to a complaint and then claim it means something other than what the document states.3
This principle ensures that the documents are given proper weight, especially when they contain facts that directly contradict the plaintiff’s allegations, preventing any attempt to mislead the court. It also helps keep the litigation process focused by preventing parties from using vague or misleading allegations to bypass the facts in the exhibit.
Statutory Foundation Under 735 ILCS 5/2-606
The Exhibits Control Rule is based on 735 ILCS 5/2-606. The statute requires that when a claim is founded on a written instrument, the instrument must either be recited in the complaint or attached as an exhibit. Once attached, the exhibit becomes a part of the pleading for all purposes. When considering a motion to dismiss, the court treats the exhibit as an integral part of the complaint, not just additional background information. By giving the attached exhibits greater importance, the statute ensures that the key documents at the heart of a legal claim are given the attention they deserve, especially in the early stages of litigation.4
What Constitutes a ‘Written Instrument’?
A ‘written instrument’ generally refers to documents like contracts, deeds, notes, and letters that outline legal obligations or rights. However, not every attachment automatically qualifies as a controlling document. To override conflicting allegations, the document must be fundamental to the claim, not just something that supports it. For example, a simple letter may not have the same impact as a formal contract or trust document that forms the core of the plaintiff’s claim.5
How the Rule Plays Out in Real-World Case
The Exhibits Control Rule has been consistently applied by Illinois courts in motions to dismiss, particularly when attached exhibits contradict the allegations in the complaint. A few key cases demonstrate how this rule is put into practice:
1. Gagnon v. Schickel, 2012 IL App (1st) 120645, 368 Ill. Dec. 240, 983 N.E.2d 1044 (Ill. App. 2012)
In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the parties had an oral agreement under which he would receive a 50% ownership interest in the property, but he also attached to his complaint a gift letter characterizing his $147,250 transfer as a gift. Because the exhibit directly contradicted the allegation that the payment was consideration for an ownership interest, the court treated the exhibit as controlling and upheld dismissal. The case illustrates that a plaintiff cannot avoid dismissal by pleading around the plain terms of a document attached to the complaint.
2. Garrison v. Choh, 308 Ill. App. 3d 48, 241 Ill. Dec. 376, 719 N.E.2d 237 (1999)
Here, the Plaintiff argued that the physician’s report attached to the section 2-622 affidavit should be treated as part of the complaint to broaden the malpractice allegations. The court disagreed by holding that the report was not a foundational document under section 2-606, but only a statutory support document required to show the claim had a reasonable basis. Because it was not an instrument on which the claim was founded, it was not a controlling exhibit. The case shows that not every document attached to a complaint becomes controlling for pleading purposes.
3. McCormick v. McCormick, 118 Ill. App. 3d 455, 74 Ill. Dec. 73, 455 N.E.2d 103 (1983)
In McCormick, the plaintiff alleged that the trustees unlawfully delegated judgmental and discretionary functions and the court found no such limitation on the trustees’ power in the trust instrument attached to the complaint. According to the court, the trial court did not err in determining that plaintiff’s complaint, when viewed in conjunction with the trust document, fails to allege a cause of action for unlawful delegation. However, the court held that while a written instrument upon which a claim is founded becomes part of the pleading and controls over conflicting allegations, this rule does not apply to every attached document. According to the court, the other exhibits were not conclusive evidence that the facts are contrary to the allegations in the complaint. Here, the trial court treated exhibits attached merely as examples of evidence, including memoranda and letters, as controlling over the complaint’s allegations. The appellate court explained that section 36 applies to documents upon which the claim is founded but not to exhibits attached only as evidentiary examples and it could not be used to draw factual inferences to dismiss the complaint.6
4. Sharkey v. Snow, 13 Ill. App. 3d 448, 300 N.E.2d 279 (1973)
In Sharkey, the broker sued for a commission and alleged that he had produced buyers ready, willing, and able to purchase the property on the sellers’ terms. But the complaint attached both the listing agreement and the proposed sales contract, and those exhibits showed material differences between the two. Because the attached exhibits contradicted the complaint’s assertion that the broker had procured a buyer on the listed terms, the court treated the exhibits as controlling and affirmed dismissal.
The Death Knell: When an Amendment is No Longer Possible
A complaint should only be dismissed under section 2-615 if it’s clear that there’s no possible set of facts that could entitle the Plaintiff to recover.7 In deciding on a section 2-615 motion, the court looks only at (1) facts apparent from the face of the pleadings, (2) matters subject to judicial notice, and (3) judicial admissions in the record.8 When an attached exhibit completely contradicts the claim to the point where it defeats the entire complaint, an amendment might be pointless. In such cases, the court may dismiss the case because a plaintiff cannot work around a document that is part of the complaint and directly negates the claim.9
Strategic Insights
- For Plaintiffs: Be selective about the exhibits attached to the complaint. Specifically, ensure that they support your allegations. A contradictory exhibit can weaken your claim right from the start, potentially damaging your case before it even gets off the ground.
2. For Defendants: Carefully review the complaint and its attachments to start, especially in the context of Section 2-615 and, in some cases, Section 2-619 motions. If an exhibit directly contradicts the allegations, it can serve as a strong foundation for dismissal.
3. Courts: The court will read the complaint together with its attached exhibits. Allegations that are contradicted by the facts in those exhibits will not be taken as true.
4. Bottom Line: In summary, the key issue in Illinois litigation may already be present in the attachments to the complaint.
Federal Law and Incorporation by Reference
In Federal litigation, the concept is similar to Illinois’ rule, but a bit more flexible. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c), exhibits attached to the complaint are considered part of the pleading. But what sets federal practice apart is the incorporation by reference doctrine. This allows courts to consider documents that are not physically attached but are mentioned within the complaint and are central to the claim. This approach means that even documents not directly attached to the complaint can be included in the court’s review, as long as they are crucial to the case and the complaining party is aware of them.10
In federal cases, if a document is referenced in the complaint, the court can consider it even if the plaintiff fails to attach it. This prevents a plaintiff from avoiding dismissal just by not attaching a crucial document that the claim relies on.11
A good example of this is the case Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners, where the court considered the full licensing agreement mentioned in the complaint, even though it was not attached. The court dismissed the case based on the terms of the licensing agreement, demonstrating how powerful the incorporation by reference doctrine can be.12
Illinois vs. Federal: A Quick Comparison
Key Differences at a Glance:
- The Governing Rule: Illinois follows 735 ILCS 5/2-606, whereas federal practice is governed by FRCP 10(c).
2. What Triggers the Rule: In Illinois, the document must be an ‘operative’ instrument essential to the claim. In Federal court, however, the ‘Incorporation by Reference’ doctrine broadens the scope, allowing documents referenced in the complaint to be considered, even if they are not physically attached.
3. The Conflict Rule: Both Illinois and Federal courts agree—if the document says ‘A’ and the complaint says ‘B,’ the document (exhibit) takes precedence.
Final Thoughts
The Exhibits Control Rule is a vital tool in Illinois litigation, particularly when evaluating motions to dismiss at the pleading stage. By prioritizing attached exhibits, courts ensure that parties cannot bypass documents that directly contradict their claims. This rule ensures that the facts presented in exhibits are given the weight they deserve, preventing manipulation of the pleadings. For Plaintiffs, this highlights the importance of carefully selecting exhibits that strengthen their case. For Defendants, it presents an opportunity to challenge the complaint early if an exhibit directly contradicts the allegations. Whether in Illinois under 735 ILCS 5/2-606 or in Federal court under Rule 10(c), understanding how pleadings and controlling documents work together can make the difference between keeping your case alive or seeing it dismissed often before you even get to the expensive stages of discovery or trial. In many cases, the strongest argument for dismissal is not uncovered in discovery, it is already sitting in the exhibits attached to the complaint.
[1] 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-606
[2] Gagnon v. Schickel, 2012 IL App (1st) 120645, 368 Ill. Dec. 240, 983 N.E.2d 1044
[3] Sharkey v. Snow, 13 Ill. App. 3d 448, 300 N.E.2d 279 (1973)
[4] 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-606
[5] Garrison v. Choh, 308 Ill. App. 3d 48, 241 Ill. Dec. 376, 719 N.E.2d 237 (1999)
[6] McCormick v. McCormick, 118 Ill. App. 3d 455, 74 Ill. Dec. 73, 455 N.E.2d 103 (1983)
[7] Harris v. Wunsch (In re Estate of Powell), 2014 IL 115997, 382 Ill. Dec. 14, 12 N.E.3d 14
[8] Peters v. Riggs, 2015 IL App (4th) 140043, 392 Ill. Dec. 49, 32 N.E.3d 49
[9] 735 ILCS 5/2-606, Gagnon v. Schickel, 2012 IL App (1st) 120645, 368 Ill. Dec. 240, 983 N.E.2d 1044
[10] Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c)
[11] Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus, 998 F.2d 1192 (3d Cir. 1993)
[12] Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners, 682 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2012)
By Haroon Vaseem, Associate – Legal
For more practical litigation drafting tips, pleading and legal research insights, follow LawCompany.