Sohaey v. Van Cura
| Decision Date | 30 December 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-92-0049,2-92-0049 |
| Citation | 240 Ill.App.3d 266,607 N.E.2d 253 |
| Parties | , 180 Ill.Dec. 359 Manutchehr SOHAEY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Mark X. VAN CURA et al., Defendants-Appellees (Kennedy Development Group, Inc., Defendant). |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 16, 1993.
Cary S. Fleischer, Chuhak Tecson Kienlen Feinberg Grasso & Josephson, Chicago, James W. Naisbitt (argued), Chuhak & Tecson, P.C., for M., M. & Behinfar, M. Sohaey.
Janet S. Angus (argued), Chicago, for Mark X. Van Cura.
D. Kendall Griffith, Maureen R. Lennon, George W. Spellmire, Jr., Gary J. Bazydlo, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Moelmann, Hoban & Fuller, for Medical Business Consultants.
Nancy G. Lischer, George W. Spellmire, Jr., Maureen R. Lennon, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Moelmann, Hoban & Fuller, John B. Kincaid, Mirabella & Kincaid, Wheaton, for Coldwell Banker Commercial.
On March 17, 1987, plaintiffs, Dr. Manutchehr Sohaey, Minoo Sohaey, and Dr. Mehdi Behinfar, brought an action in Du Page County circuit court to recover for economic damages incurred as a result of their purchase of a shopping center. Plaintiffs' complaint, as amended and supplemented, contained 11 counts.
Counts I, II and VIII, against defendant Mark X. Van Cura, claimed negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Consumer Fraud Act) (). Counts III, V, VII and VIII, against defendant Coldwell Banker, claimed negligence, breach of contract, intentional tort, and violation of the Consumer Fraud Act. Counts IV, VI and VIII against defendant Frank Kotnaur, claimed negligence, intentional tort, and violation of the Consumer Fraud Act. Count IX, against Kennedy Development Group, Inc. (KDG), claimed violation of the Consumer Fraud Act. Counts X and XI, against defendants Medical Business Consultants, Inc., its president, Wheeler E. Chapman, and employee, Joan Mleko (MBC defendants), claimed negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract. Coldwell Banker filed a three-count counterclaim (count III was later withdrawn) for commission fees from plaintiffs. Counts I and II of the counterclaim sounded in quantum meruit and breach of contract.
KDG settled with plaintiffs prior to trial. Also before the trial, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the MBC defendants on the two counts against them. The jury returned verdicts in favor of Van Cura on counts I and II against him. The jury returned verdicts in favor of Kotnaur and Coldwell Banker on counts III and IV. The trial court directed verdicts in favor of Kotnaur on count VI and Coldwell Banker on counts V and VII and in favor of Coldwell Banker on counts I and II of its counterclaim. The trial court also entered judgment in favor of Coldwell Banker and Kotnaur on count VIII. 1
Stated in summary form, plaintiffs' appeal raises the following issues:
(1) whether the jury verdicts in favor of Van Cura on counts I and II were against the manifest weight of the evidence;
(2) whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgments for the MBC defendants;
(3) whether the trial court erred in barring the testimony of two of plaintiffs' expert witnesses;
(4) whether the jury verdicts in favor of Kotnaur on count III and Coldwell Banker on count IV were against the manifest weight of the evidence;
(5) whether the trial court erred in directing verdicts in favor of Kotnaur on count VI and in favor of Coldwell Banker on count VII and the two counts of its counterclaim;
(6) whether the trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of Kotnaur and Coldwell Banker on count VIII;
(7) whether the jury was properly instructed;
(8) whether the trial court erred in certain of its pretrial discovery orders;
(9) whether the trial court erred in certain of its pretrial conference rulings; and
(10) whether the trial court erred in certain of its rulings during the trial.
Plaintiffs allege economic damages arising from their purchase of the Market Square Shopping Center (Market Square) located in Schaumburg, Illinois. The Market Square sale closed on August 5, 1986. Plaintiffs paid $4,350,000 for Market Square.
Plaintiffs suffered economic losses from their purchase of Market Square. These losses were generally in the form of lower than expected rental income, which was not sufficient to cover mortgage payments and other necessary expenses of ownership of Market Square. Plaintiffs had expected the rental income flow from Market Square to cover the expenses of ownership. Plaintiffs presented several expert witnesses who opined that plaintiffs paid substantially more for Market Square than it was worth because many of the tenants were behind on their rents due to undisclosed financial difficulties or stores believed to be open had closed or had not yet opened.
Plaintiffs claimed that several of their agents acted alone and in concert to cause them to suffer these economic losses. They allege that Mark X. Van Cura was their attorney for the Market Square transaction and that Van Cura negligently breached his fiduciary duties to them by concealing information from them and encouraging them to go ahead with the purchase when it was not in their best interest. Plaintiffs testified that if Van Cura had made them aware of this information and had properly advised them, they would not have gone ahead with the purchase of Market Square. Plaintiffs contend that Van Cura did not act in their best interest because of a conflict of interest. Plaintiffs testified they did not know until after the closing that Van Cura was acting as a real estate broker for the transaction and would receive a buyer's side commission from the transaction. Van Cura countered that he was not plaintiffs' attorney in the Market Square deal, that he did not negligently breach his fiduciary duties to plaintiffs, and that plaintiffs knew he was acting as a real estate broker and would get a commission from the transaction. The jury returned verdicts in favor of Van Cura on the negligence and breach of fiduciary duties counts directed against him.
Plaintiffs next claimed that they suffered damages due to the conduct of the MBC defendants. Plaintiffs testified they relied on information provided by the MBC defendants which caused them to go ahead with the Market Square purchase when they otherwise would not have. They claim that the MBC defendants, whom plaintiffs had contracted with for advice on the financial soundness of the proposed purchase of Market Square, made negligent misrepresentations and breached the contract thus causing damages. The trial court granted the MBC defendants' motions for summary judgment on the two counts against them.
Plaintiffs also claim that they were damaged by the conduct of Kotnaur and his employer, Coldwell Banker. Plaintiffs testified that they believed Kotnaur was acting as their real estate broker in the Market Square sale. Plaintiffs claimed Kotnaur and Coldwell Banker negligently failed to conform to the standard of care required of real estate brokers and therefore breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also charged Coldwell Banker with breach of contract, and Kotnaur and Coldwell Banker with intentional tort sounding in civil conspiracy, and violation of the Consumer Fraud Act. Plaintiffs claim damages from all of the charged conduct. Kotnaur denied that he was a real estate broker for the plaintiffs. The trial court directed verdicts in favor of Kotnaur and Coldwell Banker on the counts charging intentional tort and in favor of Coldwell Banker on its counterclaims and entered judgment in favor of Kotnaur and Coldwell Banker on the violation of the Consumer Fraud Act counts. The jury returned verdicts in favor of Kotnaur and Coldwell Banker on the negligence counts.
We initially consider plaintiffs' numerous allegations of error by the trial court with respect to jury instructions and evidentiary rulings during discovery, pretrial conferences, and the trial. The vast majority of plaintiffs' arguments in support of these allegations do not contain citations to the relevant pages of the record or to relevant authorities.
Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(7) provides in pertinent part:
"The appellant's brief shall contain the following parts * * *
* * * * * *
(7) Argument, which shall contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities and the pages of the record relied on. * * * Points not argued are waived * * *." (134 Ill.2d R. 341(e)(7).)
Arguments which are not supported by authority do not satisfy Rule 341(e)(7). (Rockford Memorial Hospital v. Schueler (1988), 167 Ill.App.3d 358, 362, 118 Ill.Dec. 183, 521 N.E.2d 251.) Strict adherence to the rule's requirement of citation to the relevant record pages is necessary to expedite and facilitate the administration of justice. (Mielke v. Condell Memorial Hospital (1984), 124 Ill.App.3d 42, 48, 79 Ill.Dec. 78, 463 N.E.2d 216.) Arguments which do not satisfy Rule 341(e)(7) do not merit consideration on appeal (In re Marriage of Winton (1991), 216 Ill.App.3d 1084, 1090, 159 Ill.Dec. 933, 576 N.E.2d 856) and may be rejected for that reason alone. Amp-Rite Electric Co. v. Wheaton Sanitary District (1991), 220 Ill.App.3d 130, 166, 162 Ill.Dec. 659, 580 N.E.2d 622.
The trial of this cause was spread over three weeks, producing thousands of pages of transcript. Plaintiffs made 18 distinct allegations of evidentiary error and only cited one authority to support their arguments on four of the allegations. Virtually every allegation of evidentiary error is made without reference to relevant pages in the record. Of the 12 allegations of jury instruction error, only four are supported by citations of relevant authority.
We will not consider the allegations of trial court error not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ball v. Kotter
...agree with the district court that this argument is without merit. The Administrators rely on Sohaey v. Van Cura, 240 Ill.App.3d 266, 180 Ill.Dec. 359, 607 N.E.2d 253 (Ill.App.Ct. 2d Dist.1992), and LID Associates v. Dolan, 324 Ill.App.3d 1047, 258 Ill.Dec. 592, 756 N.E.2d 866 (Ill.App.Ct. ......
-
Ball v. Kotter, Case No. 08–CV–1613.
...not only would be unnecessary but improper. ( Id.). In support of this assertion, Plaintiffs cite Sohaey v. Van Cura, 240 Ill.App.3d 266, 180 Ill.Dec. 359, 607 N.E.2d 253 (2nd Dist.1993), and LID Associates v. Dolan, 324 Ill.App.3d 1047, 258 Ill.Dec. 592, 756 N.E.2d 866 (1st Dist.2001). How......
-
Petri v. Gatlin
...ICFA. In re Estate of Albergo, 275 Ill.App.3d 439, 211 Ill.Dec. 905, 656 N.E.2d 97, 107 (1995) (citing Sohaey v. Van Cura, 240 Ill.App.3d 266, 180 Ill.Dec. 359, 607 N.E.2d 253, 272 (1992)); Evanston Hosp. v. Crane, 254 Ill.App.3d 435, 193 Ill. Dec. 870, 627 N.E.2d 29, 36 (1993). But "[a] st......
-
LID ASSOCIATES v. Dolan
...was adduced that interest rates on deeply subordinated, risky loans do not "float." 7. In Sohaey v. Van Cura, 240 Ill.App.3d 266, 283-84, 180 Ill.Dec. 359, 607 N.E.2d 253 (1992) (Sohaey), the circuit court properly excluded proffered opinion testimony of plaintiffs' expert as to the standar......
-
Questions Calling for a Conclusion
...an expert to testify concerning the results §3.700 Is It Admissible? 3-8 of legal research. Sohaey v. Van Cura , 180 Ill. Dec. 359, 607 N.E.2d 253 (Ill. App. 2 Dist. 1992). Expert opinions may not be admitted on matters of common knowledge, but opinions on such matters may be admitted if th......
-
Questions calling for a conclusion
...an expert’s attempt to invade the court’s province by tendering statutory interpretations, see Sohaey v. Van Cura , 180 Ill. Dec. 359, 607 N.E.2d 253 (Ill. App. 2 Dist. 1992). In U.S. v. Espino , 32 F.3d 253 (7th Cir. 1994), the defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine al......
-
Questions calling for a conclusion
...an expert’s attempt to invade the court’s province by tendering statutory interpretations, see Sohaey v. Van Cura , 180 Ill. Dec. 359, 607 N.E.2d 253 (Ill. App. 2 Dist. 1992). In U.S. v. Espino , 32 F.3d 253 (7th Cir. 1994), the defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine al......
-
Questions Calling for a Conclusion
...an expert’s attempt to invade the court’s province by tendering statutory interpretations, see Sohaey v. Van Cura , 180 Ill. Dec. 359, 607 N.E.2d 253 (Ill. App. 2 Dist. 1992). In U.S. v. Espino , 32 F.3d 253 (7th Cir. 1994), the defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine al......