1600 Museum Park, LLC v. Williams, 2012 WL 6955718, chronicles an aborted condominium purchase and its ensuing litigation. A condo owner and two purchasers signed a contract (Contract) and an approx. $25K promissory note in connection with a condo sale. But only one of the buyers signed the contract and note. The deal fell through and the defendants sent a written termination notice to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff sued to confess judgment against both defendants and the trial court entered judgment against both defendants jointly and severally for over $30K. Defendants appealed.
The First District affirmed the money judgment against the defendant that signed the contract and note but reversed as to the buyer that didn’t sign either document.
Collateral Estoppel and Law of the Case Doctrines
The Appellate Court found that the trial court erred in its application of collateral estoppel.
Collateral estoppel is designed to prevent the relitigation of issues that have already been resolved in earlier actions and specifically contemplates two separate, and consecutive cases. ¶¶ 13-14.
Collateral estoppel applies where (1) there is a final, valid judgment on the merits in a prior suit; (2) the issue in the prior suit is identical to the issue in the current case; and (3) the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party to, or in privity with a party to the prior lawsuit. ¶ 15.
The Court held that since there was no prior lawsuit – there is only one case involved – collateral estoppel didn’t apply. In addition, the Court found that the ex parte confession of judgment entered against defendants was, by its nature, not a final judgment on the merits. Id., ¶ 17.
The First District also rejected plaintiff’s law-of-the-case (“LOC”) argument.
LOC “bars relitigation of an issue previously decided in the same case.” The rule applies where an appellate court decides an issue of law and then remands the case to the trial court and is designed to prevent a second appeals court from contradicting the first appellate court on an issue of law.
The Court found that since this case did not involve a prior appellate ruling and there was no remand to a trial court, the law-of-the-case rule didn’t apply.
Section 2-1401 Petitions
Code Section 2-1401 petition (735 ILCS 5/2-1401), which governs motions to vacate a judgment older than 30 days. ¶ 20.
A Section 2-1401 petition establishes (1) a meritorious defense; (2) due diligence in discovering the defense; and (3) due diligence in bringing the petition. (¶¶ 19-20)
Promissory Note Liability and Contract Cancellation
The purchasers argued that since only one of them signed the Note, it wasn’t enforceable on either of them. The First District disagreed and held the Note’s text didn’t require both purchasers’ signatures for the Note’s enforceability. ¶¶ 23-24.
The defendants other argument was that since they cancelled the Contract, the Note was also necessarily cancelled. The Court dismissed this noting that the Contract gave defendants only seven days to terminate the contract. Since the defendants’ sent their termination letter more than four months after the Contract was signed, the termination was untimely. As a result, the Contract was never cancelled and the Note was enforceable (but only as to the signing defendant). (¶¶ 26-27).
– Real estate contract termination deadlines will be enforced as written;
– Collateral estoppel and law-of-the-case are construed narrowly and only apply where there are at least two separate, successive cases (for collateral estoppel) or where there is an appeals court decision on a legal issue and subsequent remand to a trial court (for law-of-the-case);
– A promissory note will be enforced to the letter and the court will not engraft conditions onto a clearly drafted note.