I just came across an interesting moment from the August 19, 2014, oral arguments in the Illinois First District Appellate Court case of Harris v. Adame, which I listened to while doing yard work.
I know nothing about the case, but from what I can glean from the oral argument, one party is attempting to set aside a real estate conveyance because the conveying party was under some disability at the time (the attorney said it was "mental retardation"), and the guardian failed to obtain the required court approval before entering into the conveyance on the disabled party's behalf. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding the conveyance void.
Justice Pierce (I think it was Pierce, but it could have been Simon) was very active in his questioning. He seemed very concerned about the impact of the Appellate Court's decision on the parties. At the conclusion of arguments (audio at 39:58), the Justice said the following:
"The court will take this matter under advisement. The court is adjourned.
I would like to encourage both sides, and the title company, that--[this] case is still alive, obviously, but legal fees, time, and best interest of everybody--in the judgment of this one justice requires consultation amongst the parties to resolve this so that the equities on all sides can be addressed. Further litigation of this is *** not productive. Thank you."
Disclaimer: Everything I know about this case comes from the oral argument audio. I might not even be correct in my guess of which of the four judges on the First District, Second Division, were speaking.