Statute of Frauds Defeats Seller’s Countersuit for Damages After Property Sale Falls Through (IL 2d Dist.)

IMG_0275

When a deal to sell two industrial buildings collapsed, the would-be buyer sued to recover his $10K earnest money deposit. The seller, thinking the buyer was to blame for the aborted contract, countersued for $300K – the difference between the sale price plaintiff was supposed to pay and for what the seller ultimately sold the buildings to another buyer

Affirming dismissal of the seller’s counterclaim, the appeals court in Pease v. McPike, 2015 IL App (2d) 140881-U examines the contours of the Statute of Frauds (“SOF”) as it applies to commercial real estate transactions.

The plaintiff buyer never signed the contract that the sellers were trying to enforce.  Instead, the buyer signed a cancellation notice that post-dated the failed contract.  The seller argued that the buyer’s signature on the cancellation notice coupled with the allegations in his complaint were enough to satisfy the writing requirement (and that the buyer “signed” the earlier contract) of the SOF.

An Illinois real estate contract cannot be enforced under the SOF unless (1) there is a written memorandum or note on one or more documents; (2) the documents (if there are more than one) collectively contain a description of the property and terms of sale, including price and manner of payment, and (3) the memorandum or note is signed by the party to be charged (here, the plaintiff buyer). 

To satisfy the SOF, the writing itself doesn’t have to be a contract; it just has to be evidence that one (a contract) exists.  The writing doesn’t have to consist of a single page, but the writing signed by the party being sued must contain the essential terms of the contract and, where several writings exist, they must refer to one another or otherwise show a connection between them.  In a case of multiple writings, not all of them have to be signed. However, the writings that are signed must have a connection to the contract.  (¶ 41). 

A written cancellation of a contract can sometimes satisfy the SOF writing requirement and demonstrate to a court that a written contract does in fact exist.  However, the cancellation notice must explicitly refer to the contract and delineate the contract’s key terms. (¶ 48).

Here, there were two contracts – the initial purchase contract (which plaintiff did not sign) and the second “replacement contract” (which plaintiff did sign).  The Court found that the cancellation notice (cancelling the first contract) signed by the plaintiff wasn’t enough to bind him to the first contract (the contract the seller wanted to enforce).  On its face, that contract didn’t mention plaintiff and it wasn’t signed by him.

The court also rejected the seller’s judicial admission argument – that plaintiff’s complaint for the return of his earnest money was a judicial admission that he was party to the first contract.  A judicial admission is binding and conclusive on the party admitting a fact and withdraws that fact from the need to prove it at trial.  (¶ 53).

The court found that while the plaintiff’s complaint wasn’t the most artfully drafted one, it still alleged enough to demonstrate the plaintiff wasn’t a party to the first contract.  At most, plaintiff alleged (“admitted”) that he submitted a contingent offer to buy the buildings and that the offer was ultimately withdrawn.

Afterwords:

1/ Multiple writings, when read together, can satisfy SOF writing requirement;

2/ In a case (like here) where there is a patchwork of writings, the writing must explicitly refer to the underlying contract and show a connection to the contract to satisfy the SOF; and

3/ A complaint allegation can constitute a judicial admission but only if it is a definite, categorical statement.  If it’s vague or a hedging allegation, it likely won’t constitute a judicial admission.

 

 

 

 

Five-Year Limitations Period to Sue Dissolved Corporation Applies to Piercing Corporate Veil Suit – IL Court

1140970-one-pill-dissolve-in-water-with-bubbles-Stock-Photo-dissolve

Peetom v. Swanson, 334 Ill.App.3d 523 (2nd. Dist. 2002) provides a dated yet instructive recitation of the statute of limitations standards that govern corporate veil piercing actions in Illinois.

The case’s relevant chronology includes: (1) Plaintiff filed a negligence action in 1995 against a corporate defendant for injuries plaintiff suffered in 1993, (2) In May 1997 – the corporate defendant was defaulted; (3) In June 1998, the corporate defendant was involuntarily dissolved by the Illinois Secretary of State for failure to file a report and pay its taxes, (4) In November 1998, a $1M money judgment entered against corporate defendant; and (5) in 2000, plaintiff filed suit against corporate shareholders under a veil piercing theory to enforce the 1998 default judgment.

The trial court dismissed the suit as untimely under the two-year limitations period for personal injury actions and the plaintiff appealed.

Held: Reversed.

Q: Why?

A: The case involves the interplay between three limitations periods in the Code of Civil Procedure.  Section 13-202 sets forth a two-year limitations period for personal injury claims, Section 12.80 of the Business Corporation Act requires a claim against a dissolved corporation (or its shareholders and directors) to be brought within five years after dissolution, and Code Section 12-108 provides for a seven-year period to enforce a judgment.  735 ILCS 5/13-202, 815 ILCS 5/12.80, 735 ILCS 5/12-108.

Since piercing the corporate veil is an equitable remedy and not a cause of action, the limitations period applicable to a piercing claim is governed by the nature of the underlying cause of action.  The question is “which underlying action?”  The 1995 negligence suit or the 2000 action to enforce the money judgment against the corporate shareholders?

The court rejected the shareholder defendants’ argument that the 1995 case was the underlying claim and that the two-year period for personal injury suits applied.  The court found that plaintiff’s 2000 piercing action, which sought to affix liability to the shareholder defendants for the $1M money judgment against the corporation, was the underlying claim for purposes of applying the statute of limitations.  The court found that in the 2000 case, Plaintiff was not alleging negligence against the shareholders but was instead trying to enforce the 1998 judgment assessed against the dissolved corporation.  As a result, Plaintiff would normally have seven years – through November 2005 – to sue on the money judgment.

However, since the corporate defendant was dissolved, the five-year period for suing a dissolved corporation and its shareholders based on pre-dissolution debts applied.  Plaintiff’s piercing suit was still timely though.  The judgment entered in 1998 and plaintiff filed suit in 2000 – well within the five-year period.

The other argument the First District rejected was defendant’s claim that the five-year period to sue a defunct corporation didn’t apply since at the time the corporation was dissolved, the plaintiff’s claim hadn’t yet been reduced to judgment and so plaintiff didn’t have an existing claim prior to the dissolution.

The court disagreed and found that since the corporation had been defaulted in 1997 – prior to the 1998 dissolution – the plaintiff’s claim against the corporation had already been deemed valid even though the plaintiff’s money claim wasn’t mathematically certain until after the company dissolved.  As a consequence, plaintiff had a pre-existing claim against the corporation under the Illinois BCA to trigger application of the five-year limitations period.

Afterwords:

An obvious pro-creditor decision.  The case stands for proposition that in a judgment creditor’s action against corporate shareholders to pierce the corporate veil after an earlier, unsatisfied judgment against a corporation, the seven-year limitations period to enforce a judgment applies.  The only reason the five-year period applied here was because of the specific BCA section (815 ILCS 5/12.80) that speaks to suing dissolved corporations.

Still, the plaintiff’s suit was timely as he filed well before the 2003 deadline.  Had the defendant prevailed, the plaintiff’s claim would have been barred if he didn’t sue in 1995 – two years after plaintiff’s underlying personal injury.

Debtor’s (Non-Spousal) Inherited IRA Not Exempt from Civil Judgment – IL First District Rules

Case: In re Marriage of Xenakis, 2015 IL App (1st) 141297

Fact Snapshot: The judgment debtor successfully moved to discharge citations issued to the custodian of an individual retirement account (IRA) he inherited from his deceased mother.  The judgment creditor appealed, arguing that the IRA wasn’t properly exempt from the judgment’s reach.

Result: The First District agreed with the creditor and reversed the trial court’s discharge of the citations.

Memorable Quote: “We find no indication that the Illinois legislature intended to allow a judgment debtor to exempt assets that could be spent freely and frivolously at the debtor’s whim.  The [post-judgment statute] is aimed at protecting retirement assets as opposed to funds that could, conceivably, be used to supplement the lifestyle of a non-retiree debtor.”

Reasoning:

– The purpose underlying exemptions from judgments is the protection of a debtor’s essential needs.  Setting aside funds for retirement is a court-recognized example of a debtor protecting his essential needs;

– Code Section 12-1006 exempts retirement plan assets from actions to collect a judgment so long as the retirement plan is intended in good faith to qualify as one under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

– Code Section 12-1006 is silent on the difference between a traditional IRA and an inherited non-spousal IRA, such as the one involved in this case and is the functional equivalent of Section 522 of the Bankruptcy Code which governs debtor exemptions from the bankruptcy estate;

– The US Supreme Court has held that money in an inherited IRA does not qualify as “retirement funds” under Bankruptcy Code Section 522 1

– Funds in a non-spousal inherited IRA, on their face, are not set aside for purposes of retirement;

– Unlike in a traditional IRA, the beneficiary of an inherited IRA can freely withdraw funds at any time with no tax penalty.  In fact, the owner of an inherited IRA must withdraw its funds – either in total within 5 years of the original owner’s death or via minimum annual withdrawals 2;

– Since inherited retirement funds can be withdrawn and spent by the account holder whenever he wants, these funds don’t serve the purpose of providing a debtor with the “basic necessities of life” and so do not implicate the policies that underlie judgment exemptions;

– An inherited IRA has nothing to do with retirement since the holder can spend it at will.  It is more akin to a discretionary bank account;

(¶¶ 18-26)

After canvassing the Federal bankruptcy Code, the Internal Revenue Code, the Illinois judgment exemption statutes and the foundational rationale for the exemptions, the First District squarely held that non-spousal inherited IRAs can be attached (i.e. are not exempt) by judgment creditors.

Afterwords:

1/ Exemptions serve salutary purpose of protecting debtor from destitution and abject poverty;

2/ Retirement accounts further that prophylactic purpose;

3/ This policy of protecting debtors has limits though.  If “retirement” funds can be withdrawn and spent at will, the funds won’t be treated as retirement funds and will be within a creditor’s reach.

————————-

References:

1  Clark v. Rameker, 134 S.Ct. 2242 (2014); 11 U.S.C. §§ 522(b), (d).

2  26 U.S.C. § 408(d)(3)(C)(ii)(2012)