Hallmark & Johnson Properties, Ltd. v. Gadea
Decision Date | 29 August 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 1-90-1293,1-90-1293 |
Citation | 218 Ill.App.3d 921,161 Ill.Dec. 534,578 N.E.2d 1180 |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Parties | , 161 Ill.Dec. 534 HALLMARK & JOHNSON PROPERTIES, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Antonio A. GADEA, Defendant-Appellee. |
Barry E. Morgen and Sheldon G. Perl, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant.
Vincent A. Lavieri, Kovitz Shifrin & Waitzman, Arlington Heights, for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiff, Hallmark & Johnson Properties, Ltd., brought an action against defendant, Antonio A. Gadea, for payment of a $40,000 real estate broker's commission. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for defendant.
On or about August 31, 1988, defendant signed a real estate sales contract to sell the property to Lyle T. and Debra L. Berkson and their daughter, Frances Rotman, (the Berksons) for $865,000, with an initial payment of $30,000 in earnest money, to be increased to 10% of the purchase price within 15 days of acceptance of the contract. Defendant subsequently agreed to accept the $30,000 as the total amount of earnest money. The earnest money was to be held in escrow by plaintiff.
Paragraph 3 of the contract, entitled "Mortgage Contingency" provided:
The rider was signed by the parties on August 31, 1988. Between September 6 and September 27, Blustin and the Berksons' attorney, George Skuros, exchanged correspondence regarding the contract and various modifications to it, none of which related to the issue of financing.
In early November, Blustin spoke to Hannon and Skuros regarding the provision in the Citicorp loan commitment prohibiting a second mortgage. Blustin was concerned that Citicorp would refuse to make the loan, or would later "call it in" if it learned of the second mortgage defendant agreed to hold. Blustin advised Hannon that defendant wanted his mortgage to be recorded simultaneously with the Citicorp mortgage. Hannon told Blustin that the usual procedure was to record the second mortgage two or three weeks later; and Skuros informed Blustin that the Berksons did not want Citicorp to learn of the second mortgage because it was prohibited under the terms of the loan commitment. Defendant's accountant opined that defendant's interests would not be adequately protected if there was a two or three week delay in recording the second mortgage. On November 16, 1988, Blustin advised Dawidiuk and Skuros by telephone that defendant insisted that Citicorp be made aware that there would be a second mortgage on the property and that the first and second mortgages be recorded simultaneously. On November 17, Blustin sent a letter to Skuros restating defendant's position with respect to informing Citicorp of his mortgage and the simultaneous recording of both mortgages.
Skuros contended that this was "an adequate solution to eliminate any fears you may have," and stated that defendant's failure to cooperate with the proposal would result in Skuros declaring a breach of the contract. A copy of Skuros' letter was sent to Laura Knapp, another of plaintiff's agents.
On December 6, 1988, Blustin met with defendant, Hannon, Skuros, Dawidiuk and Knapp to discuss defendant's concerns regarding the transaction. Hannon stated that he did not believe that Citicorp would learn of the second mortgage, but if they found out and raised any objection he, Hannon, guaranteed that he would secure a first mortgage elsewhere. Blustin advised defendant that the assignment of the beneficial interest to him would adequately safeguard his rights and recommended he agree to the Berksons' proposals. Defendant responded that he wanted to think about the matter for a few days.
On December 14, 1988, Blustin sent a letter to Skuros in which he restated that defendant was willing to consummate the transaction and to hold a second mortgage as long as that mortgage was recorded immediately after closing. Blustin also advised Skuros that if the Berksons did not agree to proceed with the closing by December 19, defendant would declare that they were in default of the contract and that it was null and void. Skuros responded that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
E.B. Harper & Co., Inc. v. Nortek, Inc.
...Co., 267 Ill.App.3d 742, 205 Ill.Dec. 294, 300-03, 643 N.E.2d 245, 251-54 (1994); Hallmark & Johnson Properties, Ltd. v. Gadea, 218 Ill.App.3d 921, 161 Ill.Dec. 534, 538, 578 N.E.2d 1180, 1184 (1991); Borrowdale v. Shepherd, 94 Ill.App.2d 1, 236 N.E.2d 436, 438 (1967). If the condition prec......
-
In re Prochnow
...a broker is entitled to a commission for the sale of real estate is “well settled.” Hallmark & Johnson Properties, Ltd. v. Gadea, 218 Ill.App.3d 921, 926, 161 Ill.Dec. 534, 578 N.E.2d 1180, 1184 (1991). A broker is entitled to a commission for the sale of real estate when he procures a buye......
-
Zink v. Maple Inv. and Development Corp.
...he is entitled to a commission even if the seller refuses to perform the contract. (Hallmark & Johnson Properties, Ltd. v. Gadea (1991), 218 Ill.App.3d 921, 926, 161 Ill.Dec. 534, 578 N.E.2d 1180; Wilmette Real Estate, 172 Ill.App.3d at 236, 122 Ill.Dec. 218, 526 N.E.2d 477.) The purchaser ......
-
Bychowski v. ERA Tempo Realty, Inc.
...its commission from the sale proceeds. (See Fox v. Ryan (1909), 240 Ill. 391, 88 N.E. 974; Hallmark & Johnson Properties, Ltd. v. Gadea (1991), 218 Ill.App.3d 921, 161 Ill.Dec. 534, 578 N.E.2d 1180; Zink v. Maple Investment & Development Corp. (1993), 247 Ill.App.3d 1032, 187 Ill.Dec. 548, ......