Implied-In-Fact Contract Claims and Motions to Reconsider – Illinois Law

In 1801 W. Irving, LLC v. Splitt Architects, Ltd., 2013 IL App (1st) 121357-U (September 12, 2013) a plaintiff developer sued an architect for breach of an oral contract and for implied indemnity in connection with the construction of a condominium building. 

The trial court struck all counts of the developer’s amended complaint and the developer appealed.

Held: Affirmed in part; reversed in part. 

Reasoning:

Breach of Oral Contract Claim

The court found the claimed oral contract was too indefinite to be enforced.  

Illinois requires that a contract’s material terms be sufficiently definite and certain so that the court can determine what the parties agreed to. ¶¶ 30-31.  

While certain nonessential terms can be missing, the parties’ failure to agree upon an essential term signals that mutual assent is lacking.

The court found several key terms were missing from oral contract including basic compensation terms.  For support, the court cited the developer’s deposition admission that the contract terms were in constant flux. ¶ 31.

Motion to Reconsider

The Court sustained the trial court’s denial of the developer’s motion to reconsider summary judgment for the architect.  A motion to reconsider’s purpose is to bring to the court’s attention (1) newly discovered evidence, (2) changes in the law, or (3) errors in the court’s prior application of law.  ¶ 33;

“Newly discovered evidence” means evidence that was not in existence at the hearing which generated the order being attacked.

Since the developer supported its motion to reconsider with its agent’s affidavit – an affidavit that wasn’t filed with its summary judgment responsethe developer  didn’t meet the newly discovered evidence test and the Court correctly refused to consider the affidavit.  ¶¶ 28, 33-34.

Implied-in-fact contract

The Court did find there was an implied-in-fact contract between the developer and architect.

An implied-in-fact contract, unlike an express contract, results from the parties’ acts and conduct. 

A contract implied-in-fact is one where a contractual obligation is imposed by the court due to some “expression or promise that can be inferred from the facts and circumstances.”   ¶ 40

The Court found the developer adequately pled an implied-in-fact contract.  The allegations that the architect and developer worked together on the project for several years without incident reflected a tacit services-for-compensation arrangement. ¶ 22.

Take-aways: A valid breach of contract claim requires that material terms be sufficiently definite and that there is a meeting of the minds on them;

A motion to reconsider based on newly discovered evidence means that the evidence didn’t exist at the time the challenged order entered;

An implied-in fact contract can present a fallback theory to breach of an express contract (if no formal contract exists) where the parties’ conduct indicates a mutual relationship with reciprocal performance and compensation.

“Private Statutes of Limitations” in Illinois: Some Quick Hits

The Featured Case: 15th Place Condominium Ass’n v. Fitzgerald Associates Architects, PC, 2013 ILApp(1st) 122292-U (September 5, 2013)

Key Rules:  

1/ Illinois’ ten-year statute of limitations (SOL) governs a developer’s breach of indemnity claim against a general contractor when the indemnity clause is part of a construction contract (735 ILCS 5/13-206);

2/ The four-year SOL (735 ILCS 5/13-214(a)) for construction-related claims does not apply to breach of a contract’s indemnification provision – even where the indemnification clause is contained in a construction contract;

3/ Contracting parties are free to agree to a shortened limitations period for claims as long as it’s unambiguous and the parties are on an equal negotiating footing;

4/ The nature of the injury determines the applicable SOL; not the pleader’s designation of the claim

–  Parties are free to mutually abbreviate a limitations period to file suit so long as it is reasonable;

¶¶ 40-44, 19-21, 50-51.

 

 

 

Fraud In the Inducement and Fraudulent Concealment – Illinois Primer

hoodwinkIn Thorne v. Riggs, 2013 IL App (3d) 120244-U (September 3, 2013), the trial court rescinded a real estate contract and the Third District affirmed.  In doing so, the Court examined Illinois fraud in the inducement and fraudulent concealment law and discussed the “special relationship” fiduciary duty rule.

Facts: Plaintiffs sued two LLC members alleging they fraudulently induced them into investing in a realty development.  Plaintiffs claimed the defendants misstated the deal’s status, timing, and whether an easement existed on the property. After trial, the trial court rescinded the contract and ordered defendants to return plaintiffs’ $1.2M investment.

Holding: Appellate Court affirmed trial court.

Reasoning/rules:  Plaintiffs’ fraud claims were premised on defendants’ misrepresentations and concealing material information about the project.

To show fraud in the inducement,  a plaintiff  must show (1) a defendant’s false statement of material fact, (2) known or believed to be false by the defendant; (3) intended to induce the plaintiff to act; (4) plaintiff acted in reliance on the truth of the representation; and (5) resulting damage ¶ 45.

Fraudulent concealment requires a showing that: (1) defendant concealed a material fact under circumstances creating a duty to speak; (2) defendant intended to induce a false belief; (3) plaintiff couldn’t have discovered truth through reasonable inquiry or inspection (or was prevented from doing so); (4) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff; (5) plaintiff would have acted differently if he was aware of the hidden information; and (6) damages. ¶ 62.

A fraudulent concealment plaintiff must also show a fiduciary relationship between him and the defendant.  Fiduciary relationships can exist (a) as a matter of law; or (b) where there is a special or confidential relationship.  The former (as a matter of law) category includes attorneys and clients, principals and agents and partners in a partnership and joint venturers in a joint venture.  Thorne, ¶ 63.

The “special relationship” fiduciary duty rule applies where one party puts trust and confidence in another who stands in a dominant position in terms of age, education, mental status or business acumen. (¶ 64).

Applying these elements, the Court held that the plaintiffs proved fraud in the inducement and fraudulent concealment at trial.

(1) Misrepresentation/concealment: defendants misrepresented status of the project and failed to alert plaintiffs that part of the property was subject to an easement and repurchase agreement (¶¶ 47-63);

(2) Knowledge of falsity – multiple witnesses testified that defendants knew of storm water issues affecting the parcels for several years but never told plaintiffs (¶¶ 52, 57);

(3) Justifiable reliance: defendants controlled the flow of information from the municipality concerning the project’s status.  Defendants divulged only selective information to plaintiffs concerning governmental requirements necessary to complete the project.  The defendants control of information made it reasonable for plaintiffs to rely on defendants.  (¶ 69, 82-83).

The court rejected defendants argument that the information was public record and therefore prevented a finding of justifiable reliance.  The court stressed that plaintiffs were neophyte investors who relied on defendants’ real estate experience.

Another factor relied on by the Court was the absence of record evidence that the easement or the storm water issues were recorded public documents.  (¶ 82).

(4) Fiduciary Duty: while plaintiffs were highly educated, they were real estate novices compared to defendants and completely relied on defendants’ expertise.  This led the Court to sustain the trial court’s “special relationship” fiduciary duty finding.  The Court also found that since defendants controlled the project information they received from the Municipality, they owed plaintiffs a precontractual fiduciary duty.  (¶ 69);

(5) Inducement – there was no other reason for defendants to represent that there were no impediments to plat approval other than to entice plaintiffs to sign the purchase agreement (¶¶ 73-75);

(6) Injury/Damages – plaintiff paid $1.2M for an investment that was promised not to exceed $550,000.  (¶¶ 85-86).

Take-aways: Both plaintiffs had multiple post-graduate degrees.  Still, the court found that they relied on and were in a vulnerable position compared to the defendants, experienced real estate developers.

Thorne also illustrates that where a defendant monopolizes the flow of a deal’s information from outside sources (i.e. a governmental agency), the plaintiff can establish the justifiable reliance prong of his fraud claim.