Pink Fox v. Kwok, 2016 IL App (1st) 150868-U, examines the corporate versus personal liability dichotomy through the lens of a commercial lease dispute. There, a nonshareholder signed a lease for a corporate tenant (a Chinese restaurant) but failed to mention the tenant’s business name next to his signature. This had predictable bad results for him as the lease signer was hit with a money judgment of almost $200K in past-due rent and nearly $20K in attorneys’ fees and court costs.
The restaurant lease had a ten-year term and required the tenant to pay over $13K in monthly rent along with real estate taxes and maintenance costs. The lease was signed by a non-shareholder of the corporate tenant who was friends with the tenant’s officers.
The non-shareholder and other lease guarantors appealed a bench trial judgment holding them personally responsible for the defunct tenant’s lease obligations.
The first procedural question was whether the trial court erred when it refused to deem the defendants’ affirmative defenses admitted based on the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the defenses.
Code Section 2-602 requires a plaintiff to reply to an affirmative defense within 21 days. The failure to reply to an affirmative defense is an admission of the facts pled in the defense. But the failure to reply only admits the truth of factual matter; not legal conclusions.
A failure to reply doesn’t admit the validity of the unanswered defense. The court has wide discretion to allow late replies to affirmative defenses in keeping with Illinois’ stated policy of having cases decided on their merits instead of technicalities. (¶ 55)
The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s allowing the plaintiff’s late reply. The court noted the defendants had several months to seek a judgment for the plaintiff’s failure to reply to the defenses yet waited until the day of trial to “spring” a motion on the plaintiff. Since the Illinois Code is to be construed liberally and not in a draconian fashion, the Court found there was no prejudice to the defendants in allowing the plaintiff’s late reply.
The court next considered whether the trial court properly entertained extrinsic evidence to interpret the commercial lease. The body of the lease stated that the tenant was a corporation yet the signature page indicated that an individual was the tenant. This textual clash created a lease ambiguity that merited hearing evidence of the parties’ intent at trial.
Generally, when an agent signs a contract in his own name and fails to mention the identity of his corporate principal, the agent remains liable on the contract he signs. But where an agent signs a document and does note his corporate affiliation, he usually is not personally responsible on the contract. Where an agent lacks authority to sign on behalf of his corporate employer, the agent will be personally liable. (¶¶ 76-77)
Since the person signing the lease testified at trial that he did so “out of friendship,” the trial court properly found he was personally responsible for the defunct Chinese restaurant’s lease obligations.
The court also affirmed the money judgment against the lease guarantors and rejected their claim that there was no consideration to support the guarantees.
Under black letter lease guarantee rules, where a guarantee is signed at the same time as the lease, the consideration supporting the lease will also support the guarantee. In such a case, the guarantor does not need to receive separate or additional consideration from the underlying tenant to be bound by the guarantee.
So long as the primary obligor – here the corporate tenant – receives consideration, the law deems the same consideration as flowing to the guarantor.
1/ Signing a lease on behalf of a corporate entity without denoting corporate connection is risky business;
2/ If you sign something out of friendship, like the defendant here, you should make sure you are indemnified by the friend/person (individual or corporation) you’re signing for;
3/ Where a guaranty is signed at the same time as the underlying lease, no additional consideration to the guarantor is required. The consideration flowing to the tenant is sufficient to also bind the guarantor.