In JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. East-West Logistics, LLC, 2014 IL App (1st) 121111, the Illinois First District affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff bank in its lawsuit for breach of a commercial guaranty. In doing so, the Court re-emphasized the key rules governing affirmative defenses, the nature of a guarantor’s liability in Illinois and the content of a proper summary judgment affidavit. Part I of this post examines the Court’s salient holdings on the court’s Section 2-615 dismissal of the defendant’s affirmative defenses. Part II will focus on the Court’s dismissal of the guarantor’s fraud counterclaims and the Court’s discussion of summary judgment affidavits.
The guarantor (Defendant is the guarantor’s estate) signed a continuing guaranty in 2003 in which he guaranteed over $1M of a logistics company’s loan debt to plaintiff. The guaranty provided that the plaintiff could proceed directly against the guarantor without first suing the principal debtor.
Plaintiff sued after the loan matured and the guarantor filed multiple affirmative defenses and counterclaims. After the guarantor died, his Estate substituted in as defendant and prosecuted the defenses and counterclaims on the guarantor’s behalf. The trial court struck all defenses and counterclaims and granted summary judgment for the bank in an amount exceeding $2M. The court also denied the Estate’s motion to strike two of the lender’s summary judgment affidavits. The Estate appealed
A: The Court rejected the Estate’s affirmative defenses that the guaranty was extinguished. The Estate’s affirmative defenses were deficient under Illinois fact-pleading rules. In Illinois, an affirmative defense must allege facts with the same degree of specificity required to establish a cause of action. An affirmative defense should not be stricken where well-pleaded facts raise the possibility that the party asserting the defense will prevail.
Illinois treats a guaranty like any other contract: the same formation and interpretation rules apply. And while a guaranty is construed in favor of the guarantor (since he’s promising to answer for another’s debt), this rule only applies where there is ambiguity or doubt about a guaranty’s meaning. Where the guaranty’s terms are clear, the terms should be enforced as written; with no need for outside evidence to interpret the guaranty’s meaning. A guarantor will be discharged where a creditor takes action without the guarantor’s consent that either varies the terms of the underlying obligation or materially increases the guarantor’s risk. (¶¶ 32-33).
The Estate claimed that the guaranty was erases because the plaintiff increased the late guarantor’s liability by continuing to lend money to the corporate debtor knowing that it was in fiscal distress. The Court disagreed and noted that the guaranty was “unconditional” and “unlimited” and the plaintiff was within its rights to continue lending monies to the corporate borrower without telling the guarantor. The guarantor also waived any notice of the corporation’s default. Illinois allows contractual waivers where they are clear and unambiguous. (¶¶ 35-36).
The Court also upheld the trial court striking the Estate’s breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and integration clause defenses. Good faith and fair dealing is implied in every contract, including guaranties. A creditor has a good-faith obligation to inform the guarantor of any facts that will materially increase the guarantor’s risk beyond that which he intended to assume. But parties are still entitled to enforce a contract to the letter and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing can’t overrule the express terms of a written contract.
Here, the duty of good faith and fair dealing didn’t alter the clear and expansive guaranty language. The guaranty required the decedent/guarantor to actively monitor the corporate debtor’s financial state. As a result, the bank’s continued loans to the struggling corporate borrower without informing the guarantor didn’t violate the duty of good faith and fair dealing. (¶¶47-52).
The Court also rejected the Estate’s claim that an integration clause in the underlying loan agreement (between the bank and the corporation) terminated the deceased’s guaranty obligations. An integration clause manifests the parties’ intent to protect against misinterpretations of a contract that might arise from extrinsic evidence. It bars from consideration any evidence outside of the contract that tries to explain a certain term’s meaning.
Here, since the deceased wasn’t party to the underlying loan contract (it was between the bank and a corporation), he couldn’t rely on that contract’s integration clause to affect his guaranty obligations. As a result, the loan agreement integration clause didn’t impact the guarantor’s obligations. (¶¶ 59-63).
Conclusion: East-West Logistics presents a thorough summary of Illinois’ pleading rules for affirmative defenses and the substantive law on written guaranty construction and enforcement. Even though a guarantor is a proverbial “favorite” of the law, a guaranty will still be enforced as written – no matter how seemingly harsh the terms are. The case reaffirms the proposition that a breach of implied duty of good faith defense can’t override clear, countervailing language in a written contract. It’s also post-worthy for its discussion of the purpose and scope of integration clauses in written contracts.