Komater v. Kenton Court Associates, No. 2-86-0390

• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: NASH
• Citation: 104 Ill.Dec. 635,151 Ill.App.3d 632,502 N.E.2d 1295
• Docket Number: No. 2-86-0390
• Decision Date: 31 December 1986
• Parties: , 104 Ill.Dec. 635 Arthur J. KOMATER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KENTON COURT ASSOCIATES, an Illinois General Partnership; Julian J. Golding; Jerroll L. Iseberg; Donald Kaplan; and the Estate of Maurice Harris, Defendants-Appellees.

Page 1295

502 N.E.2d 1295 151 Ill.App.3d 632, 104 Ill.Dec. 635 Arthur J. KOMATER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KENTON COURT ASSOCIATES, an Illinois General Partnership;
Julian J. Golding; Jerroll L. Iseberg; Donald
Kaplan; and the Estate of Maurice
Harris, Defendants-Appellees. No. 2-86-0390. Appellate Court of Illinois,
Second District. Dec. 31, 1986.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 9, 1987.

Page 1296

[151 Ill.App.3d 634] [104 Ill.Dec. 636] Thomas W. Gooch & Associates, Ltd., Thomas W. Gooch, III, Kim A. Lewis, Wauconda, for plaintiff-appellant.

Brydges, Riseborough, Morris, Franke & Miller, Louis W. Brydges, Jr., John C. Polster, Waukegan, for defendants-appellees.

Presiding Justice NASH delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Arthur Komater, appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant, Kenton Court Associates, contending the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because defendant's unverified motion for that relief was not supported by affidavit.

On January 11, 1984, plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of contract against defendant alleging in count I that on April 1, 1982, plaintiff entered into an oral contract with defendant to furnish carpentry and labor services for defendant's construction project for the sum of $481,000. By January 12, 1983, plaintiff had completed

Page 1297

[104 Ill.Dec. 637] $276,000 worth of work on the project, but defendant had only paid plaintiff $140,000 despite plaintiff's repeated demands, and he sought damages of $136,000 and interest. Count II of the complaint alleged that on April 1, 1982, plaintiff also entered into an oral contract with defendant to furnish general construction supervision for the project for $96,000. By January 12, 1983, plaintiff had completed $76,000 worth of supervisory work on the project, but defendant had only paid $37,800, and plaintiff sought damages of $38,200 and interest.

On November 27, 1985, defendant submitted interrogatories to plaintiff whose answers were filed on January 21, 1986. Defendant's Interrogatory No. 2 stated:

"2. State the exact nature and terms of the alleged agreement between Plaintiff and the Kenton Court Associates reaffirming to in the complaint, the date the agreement was reached, who else was present, whether there was any writing contained or referred to in the terms of the agreement, and whether the agreement was subsequently modified, rescinded or altered in [151 Ill.App.3d 635] any manner."

Plaintiff's answer stated:

"ANSWER: On or about April 1, 1982, Plaintiff made an oral contract with Kenton Court Associates through one of its General Partners, Jerroll L. Iseberg, by which Plaintiff agreed to furnish General carpentry services, miscellaneous labor services and supervision for a certain construction project being build by the Defendants, specifically 5311 North Kenmore, Chicago, Illinois. Present at that meeting were Arthur J. Komater, Carol Komater, and Jerroll L. Iseberg. There is no writing containing or referring to the terms of the agreement, investigation continues."

On February 19, 1986, defendant filed an unverified motion for summary judgment alleging that plaintiff's answer to the interrogatory did not set forth a legally enforceable contract because it failed to state the existence of a writing of the agreement, a price, the term, a specific subject matter or a time for payment or performance, and was otherwise so vague that the additional terms necessary to make the contract enforceable were not reasonably inferable from the answer. On March 12, 1986, plaintiff filed a verified response to defendant's motion, which incorporated his verified complaint by reference, and alleged that "Plaintiff did not interpret the interrogatory question as requiring that he set forth each and every term of the agreement particularly in view of the fact that...