Exchange Nat. Bank v. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. of Michigan
| Decision Date | 20 July 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-697,No. 32276,B,32276,81-697 |
| Citation | 108 Ill.App.3d 212,63 Ill.Dec. 884,438 N.E.2d 1247 |
| Parties | , 63 Ill.Dec. 884 EXCHANGE NATIONAL BANK as Trustee under Trustarry L. Moss and Steven P. Bloomberg, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FARM BUREAU LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, a Michigan corporation; Elton R. Smith, individually and as President; W. S. Wilkenson, individually and as Secretary; Max D. Dean, individually and as Vice President; John Laurie, individually and as Vice President; Bruce Lipprandt, Gary C. King, Larry M. Skidmore, James J. Clarke II, each individually and as employee or agent, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Richard G. Siegel, Chicago, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Sheldon Davidson, Marilee Roberg, Pedersen & Houpt, and David P. Schippers, Schippers & Mackay, Chicago, for defendants-appellees.
The plaintiffs, Barry Moss and Steven Bloomberg, are beneficiaries of a land trust with the nominal plaintiff, Exchange National Bank, the trustee. The land trust held title to certain real property. Plaintiffs wanted to erect a commercial building on that land, which was located in Bolingbrook. They contracted with Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company of Michigan ("Farm Bureau") for a permanent loan commitment. Such loan was to be secured by a mortgage on the property and building. The loan contract consists of an offer, and three later amendments, the last dated April 15, 1977. The loan was for $393,750 to be paid back in full in 15 years. The terms of repayment were based on a 25 year amortization schedule at a 9.25% annual interest rate. The commitment could be extended for no longer than 180 days without Farm Bureau imposing a fee. For any further extension the lender could charge no more than 1/2 of 1% of the committed funds as a penalty. If the loan was not completed by April 1978, it expired. Closing of the final mortgage could not occur until the completed building was inspected and accepted by the lender.
In June 1977, plaintiffs received a temporary construction loan from Great Lakes Mortgage Company ("Great Lakes"). This loan was to provide funds to build the commercial structure. It was to be repaid from the proceeds of the permanent mortgage. The permanent financing contract was extended beyond 180 days. Prior to its expiry, in September 1978, Great Lakes requested Farm Bureau to inspect the building in order to finalize the mortgage. Farm Bureau did not complete that inspection but waited until April 17, 1979 to do so. Then, it accepted the building. Thereupon, Farm Bureau wanted to close the mortgage but invoked the penalty clause because of the additional time which had been granted past the agreed upon extension period.
On March 4, 1980, the plaintiffs sued Farm Bureau and its corporate executives (individually and in their official capacities) in Will County Circuit Court. The complaint contained five counts. Counts I and II directed only against the corporate defendant, Farm Bureau, and were breach of contract actions maintaining Farm Bureau unreasonably withheld the inspection of the building. Specific performance or damages based on the difference it cost plaintiffs to secure another long-term mortgage loan (i.e., $637,610) were requested. Count III, which was only directed against the individual defendants, alleged a conspiracy by such individual defendants to withhold inspection in order to escalate the interest on the permanent mortgage. Punitive damages of $2 million were requested. Count IV, which was also directed only against the individual defendants, sought recovery on a theory of fraud. Count V named all defendants and alleged a violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 121.5, par. 261), and requested $50,000 in damages, attorney's fees, and costs.
After unsuccessfully attempting to remove the entire action to federal district court, plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against the corporate defendants, Farm Bureau, on Counts I and II. That judgment remains the focus of Farm Bureau's pending Section 72 petition (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 110, § 72), filed October 21, 1980. On the latter date, all defendants also filed a motion to dismiss Counts III, IV, and V. The motion was granted. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. It is 54 pages long and names all defendants. Count III alleges that the defendants interfered with plaintiffs' contract and business relationships with Great Lakes and other unspecified lenders. Count IV realleges fraud. Again, Count V seeks to recover under the Consumer Fraud Act. Eventually, the trial judge dismissed these three counts with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action. On October 30, 1981, he certified that order indicating no just reason existed for delaying enforcement of an appeal. (73 Ill.2d R. 304(a).) Plaintiffs appealed. Defendants cross-appealed and moved to dismiss the appeal arguing the matter should not go forward since Counts I and II are still pending a decision, and our present review would result in piecemeal appeals. The motion to dismiss the appeal was denied by this court on February 11, 1982.
Interference with a person's contractual relationships has a long and well-developed history in Illinois. (Doremus v. Hennessey (1898), 176 Ill. 608, 52 N.E. 924; Parkway Bank and Trust Company v. City of Darien (1976), 43 Ill.App.3d 400, 2 Ill.Dec. 234, 357 N.E.2d 211.) Plaintiffs, however, have not stated a cause of action under such tort theory.
As to Count III, to properly plead a tortious interference with a contract, a complaint must state, based on facts, that: (1) a current contract was in force and effect between the plaintiff and another party; (2) the defendant induced the breach of such contract, or caused a third party not to perform a contract, or enter into or continue business relationships with the plaintiff; and, (3) the interference must be intentional, causing a contract breach or termination. Herman v. Prudence Mutual Casualty Co. (1969), 41 Ill.2d 468, 473-474, 244 N.E.2d 809.
Plaintiffs' complaint contains no allegation of a contract breached with a third party because of the wilful action or omissions of the defendants. The contract with Great Lakes is still in effect. Defendants have not induced a breach of that contract or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
WE O'NEIL CONST. v. National Union Fire Ins.
...and is not available as additional remedy to redress purely private wrong); Exchange National Bank v. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 108 Ill.App.3d 212, 215, 438 N.E.2d 1247, 1250, 63 Ill.Dec. 884, 887 (the Act "does not apply to every situation where ... the only actual controversy is whether ......
-
Tan v. Boyke
...the Act does not apply to a private contract between two individuals. He relies on Exchange National Bank v. Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co. (1982), 108 Ill.App.3d 212, 63 Ill.Dec. 884, 438 N.E.2d 1247, and Frahm v. Urkovich (1983), 113 Ill.App.3d 580, 69 Ill.Dec. 572, 447 N.E.2d 1007. We fi......
-
Century Universal Enterprises, Inc. v. Triana Development Corp.
...823, 829, 104 Ill.Dec. 843, 503 N.E.2d 558), or to be completely open-ended. (Exchange National Bank v. Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co. (1982), 108 Ill.App.3d 212, 215, 63 Ill.Dec. 884, 438 N.E.2d 1247.) The court in Exchange National Bank held that the CFDBPA "does not apply to every situat......
-
Lake County Grading Co. of Libertyville, Inc. v. Advance Mechanical Contractors, Inc.
...Universal, 158 Ill.App.3d at 198, 110 Ill.Dec. 229, 510 N.E.2d 1260, quoting Exchange National Bank v. Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co. (1982), 108 Ill.App.3d 212, 215, 63 Ill.Dec. 884, 438 N.E.2d 1247. In Downers Grove, we recognized that the Act protects businessmen as well as consumers and......