Lester Witte & Co. v. Lundy, 80-3200
Decision Date | 24 June 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 80-3200,80-3200 |
Citation | 98 Ill.App.3d 1100,425 N.E.2d 1,54 Ill.Dec. 489 |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Parties | , 54 Ill.Dec. 489 LESTER WITTE & COMPANY, an Illinois partnership, Arthur E. Witte and Howard M. London, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Todd S. LUNDY, Defendant-Appellant. |
Page 1
Witte and Howard M. London, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Todd S. LUNDY, Defendant-Appellant.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 25, 1981.
[98 Ill.App.3d 1101] Barry A. Erlich, Engerman & Erlich, Lt., Chicago, for defendant-appellant.
William M. Ward, Hartigan & Ward, Chicago, for plaintiffs-appellees.
McGILLICUDDY, Justice:
The instant action was brought by the plaintiffs pursuant to section 2(b) of the Uniform Arbitration Act (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1979, ch. 10, par. 102(b)) to stay an arbitration proceeding commenced by the defendant because the defendant's demand for arbitration did not state an arbitrable claim.
According to the allegations in the plaintiffs' complaint, the defendant, Todd S. Lundy, withdrew as a partner from the plaintiffs' public accounting firm, Lester Witte and Company, on October 1, 1976. Pursuant to the partnership agreement he was to be paid his equity account interest and his vested equity point interest in the firm over periods of five and ten years, respectively. The complaint further alleged that on or about July 16, 1980, due to temporary cash flow problems, the firm voted
Page 2
[54 Ill.Dec. 490] to defer these payments to the defendant. On August 11, 1980, the defendant filed his demand for arbitration. This demand was premised on paragraph 23 of the partnership agreement, which stated:"Except as provided in Article 13, any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this agreement, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Rules of the American Arbitration Association for commercial disputes, and judgment upon the award rendered by the Arbitrator(s) may be entered in any Court having jurisdiction thereof."
Article 13 is inapplicable to the instant action.
[98 Ill.App.3d 1102] The plaintiffs' petition was filed on November 14, 1980. An arbitration hearing was set for November 20, 1980. On November 17, 1980, the plaintiffs made a motion for a temporary restraining order to enjoin the arbitration proceeding until the court could hold a hearing on the plaintiffs' complaint. On the same day, the defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to section 45 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1979, ch. 110, par. 45). The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, entered a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Northern Illinois Gas Co. v. Airco Indus. Gases, a Division of Airco, Inc., 81-1743
...... See Lester Witte & Co. v. Lundy, 98 Ill.App.3d 1100, 54 Ill.Dec. 489, 425 N.E.2d 1, 3 ......
-
Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Futures, Inc. v. Barr, 64821
...College Teachers Union, Local No. 1600 (1985), 139 Ill.App.3d 617, 94 Ill.Dec. 79, 487 N.E.2d 956; Lester Witte & Co. v. Lundy (1981), 98 Ill.App.3d 1100, 54 Ill.Dec. 489, 425 N.E.2d 1; but see School District No. 46 v. Del Bianco (1966), 68 Ill.App.2d 145, 215 N.E.2d 25.) The panel similar......
- Cook County v. Renaissance Arcade and Bookstore
-
Monmouth Public Schools, Dist. No. 38 v. Pullen, 3-84-0732
...& DuPage Counties, Illinois v. Del Bianco (1966), 68 Ill.App.2d 145, 154-55, 215 N.E.2d 25, 30; Lester Witte & Co. v. Lundy (1981), 98 Ill.App.3d 1100, 1104, 425 N.E.2d 1, 3), and the collective bargaining context (see, e.g., Board of Education, South Stickney School District 111 v. Johnson......