## Facts

- Security Benefit Association, a fraternal benefit society, issued Julius Liptak a $1,000 benefit certificate payable to his wife, Lenka Liptak, on November 26, 1921.
- The association’s by-laws required members to pay one monthly assessment and local dues on or before the last day of each month; nonpayment resulted in suspension and lapse.
- After Liptak’s death in November 1929, the beneficiary sued to recover on the certificate.
- The association filed no general denial; it admitted issuance and death and defended solely by special plea that the certificate lapsed for nonpayment of the June 1929 assessment by month’s end.
- The association further alleged any July 1929 payment attempt was ineffective because it was made to an unauthorized person and because Liptak was not in good health, making reinstatement unavailable under the by-laws.
- The beneficiary contended the June 1929 assessment was timely paid to an appropriate officer; the evidence was sharply conflicting on whether the June payment was made on time.
- The jury returned a verdict for the beneficiary for $1,000; the trial court entered judgment, and the appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether, when a defendant admits the elements of the plaintiff’s prima facie claim and relies solely on a special plea asserting lapse under by-laws, the defendant bears the burden of proof on that dispositive issue.
2. Whether the party bearing the burden of proof on the controlling issue has a right to open and close the evidence and jury argument, and whether denial of that right is reversible error.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the association’s special plea of lapse was an affirmative defense, placing the burden of proof on the association.
- Because the association bore the burden on the controlling issue, it had the right to open and close.
- The trial court’s refusal to allow the association to open and close was prejudicial error, given the close factual dispute over timely payment.

## Legal Principles

- An affirmative defense pleaded as the sole defense, after admitting the plaintiff’s prima facie case, places the burden of proof on the party asserting that defense.
- The right to open and close evidence and argument follows the burden of proof on the controlling issue and is a substantial trial right.
- Denial of the right to open and close is reversible error when the outcome turns on a sharply contested factual question.

## Conclusion

Because the association admitted issuance and death and defended solely on an affirmative plea that the certificate lapsed for nonpayment, it carried the burden on the dispositive issue and was entitled to open and close; the denial of that right required reversal and a new trial.


Liptak v. Security Benefit Ass'n, 183 N.E. 564 (Ill. 1932)