FI FTH DIVI SI ON MAY 25, 2007

1-06-1294 NEW LIGHT CEMET ERY ASSOCIATI ON, ) an Illi nois Not- For -P rof it Corporat ion, ) Appe al f rom t he ) Cir cuit

Court of Plaintif f- Appellant, ) C oo k C ou nt y. ) v. ) No. 06 CH 2458 ) CA ROL YN BA UMH A RDT , ) RI CHARD HO FFMAN, and ) Th e Hono rable R. H OFF M AN & SON S, INC ., ) Sophia Hall, an Illi nois Corporat ion, ) Judge P residing. ) Defendan ts-Appellee s. )

JUSTICE T ULLY d elivered the opinion of the court: Fo llowing a he ar ing, t he circ uit co ur t denied a mot ion fo r a pr elimi nar y injunct ion filed by pl ai nti f f -ap pe l l an t, New L i gh

t Cemetery

A ss oci ati on ( New L i gh t Cemetery

), a nd gra nte d a moti on for a directed fin

din g fi led b y def endants-appellees, Caro ly n Baum hardt, Rich

ard Ho ff man, and R. Hof f man & Sons, In

c. (R. H off

man & Sons). Ne

w Li ght C em etery 's motion f or a prel i m i na ry injunct ion so ught t o r eco ver cemet er y-re late d r eco rd s t hat wer e mainta ined by R. H offman & So ns and its e mployees dur ing t he t ime that t hey ser ved a s Ne w Light Cemet er y's car et ake r a nd t hat wer e t ake n fro m the c emet er y by R. Ho ffm an & S ons when it re signed as t he ce mete ry's caretakers in

January 2006. On appeal , New Light Cem etery asse rts t hat the ci

rcuit court err ed when it deni ed New Li

ght Cem etery's motion f or a preli mi nary in jun ction an d granted R. Hoff

ma n & S o ns' mo t io n fo r a dir ec t ed finding bec au se Ne w L ight Ce met er y sat isfied all o f2

1-06-1294

the el em en ts f or a prel i m i na ry i njun cti on, i nc l udi ng a show i ng of a re as ona bl e l i ke li hood of pr ev ai l i n g on th e m eri ts o f th e c as e. Fo r the f

oll owi n g r ea son s, we re v er se an d r em an d wi th directions. BACK GROUND Ne w L igh t Ce met er y, a no t - fo r - pr o fit co r po r at io n, o pe r at es a J ew ish c eme t er y in Linco lnwoo d, Illinois. R . H offman & So ns, a n Illinois co rp or at ion, was re t ained by Ne w Light Cem etery approx i matel y 30 y ears ago to serv

e as the c aretak

ers f or the L i nc oln wood cem

etery . Th rough out th ei r nea rl y 30 -y ea r re l ati on sh i p, t h e p ar ti es opera ted pu rsua n t to an oral ag re em en t, which could be termi

nated at the wil

l of ei ther par ty. Caro ly

n Baum hardt, who has been an

R. Ho ffm an & S ons employee for t he nea rly 30 year s t hat R. Ho ffm an & S ons pr ovid ed c ar et aking ser vices fo r t he Linco lnwoo d ce mete ry, w as a lso na med as a de fendant in the a ct ion br ou ght by New Li ght Cem etery. Pursuant to her empl oym ent wi th R. Hoff

ma n & Sons , Baumh

ardt was as si gned to prov i deca reta ki ng servi ce s a

t the Li nc ol nwood c em

etery an d she wa s res pon si bl e f or maint ain ing ce met er y-r ela t ed r ec o r ds , inc lud ing ce met er y-r ela t ed r ec o r ds r eg ar din g w he r e p eo ple were buried presentl

y a nd where people were to be buri ed i n the f uture. When Bau mhard t first bega n pr ovid ing car et aking s er vices at t he ce mete ry, t he ce mete ry's prior caretaker deli

vered cem

etery-related records t o Baumh ardt. T he records Baum

hardt re ceived fro m the p rio r c ar et ake r c ont ained info rmat ion r ega rd ing wher e pe op le wer e bur ied and i nf orma tion regar di ng th e ownersh

i p of both th e occu pi ed an d the unoc cupi ed gra ve si tes. Ac cordi ng to Ba um ha rdt, the re cords s

he rece i ve d f rom th e prev i ous ca retaker were

i n poor3

1-06-1294

co ndit ion. As a r esu lt, Bau mhard t co pied t he r eco rd s into a new , g re en no t ebo ok and s he dispo sed of t he o riginal re co rd s. O ver t he next 30 yea rs, Bau mhard t upd at ed t he ce mete ry's records by

updating the

green notebook. In additi on to creating a nd m ai ntain in g the green not ebo ok , B aumhar dt st or ed t he ce mete ry's r eco rd s bo t h in a sep ar at e sp iral no t ebo ok and o n t he hard dri ve of a c omputer owned by R. Hoff ma n & Sons . Furthermore, Baum hardt mai ntain ed a map o f the cemet er y. The map ap par ent ly was given t o B aumhar dt by New Lig ht Cemet er y, and Baum hardt documented the n

am es of the people who were buried i n each grave si te and often
r ef er r ed t o t he map t o as sis t he rin h er du t ies as ca r et ak er o f t he ce met er y. On Ja nu ar y 17 , 20 06 , R. Ho ffman & S o ns r es ign ed as ca r et ak er s o f t he ce met er y. W hile t he r ec o r d is un cle ar as t o t he cir cu mst an ce s s ur r o un din g R . Ho ffman & S o ns' r es ign at io n, it app ear s t hat t he pa rt ies did no t amicably part ways. Acco rd ing t o B aumhar dt 's t est imony, at t he tim e R. Hoff ma n & Sons resigned as ca

retakers, t he com

puter o n wh

ic h Baum hardt had
mai ntai ne d the cem etery -rel ated i nf orma tion wasund ergoi ng r epai rs at a c omp

uter rep ai r sh op. At s ome p oint , R . H offman & So ns inst ru ct ed t he co mput er re pair sho p t o d est ro y the c omp ut er 's hard dri ve an d, therefore, New Light Cem etery was n

ever gi ven access to the ceme

tery-rel ated i nf orma tion stored on R. Hof f man & Sons'com

puter. In addi tion to its in

abi li ty to access the computer's h ard driv e, New Light Cem

etery has been unab le to access an

y of the other cemetery-related i nf ormation m

ai ntain ed by Baum hardt dur ing her t ime as t he ce mete ry's ca re t ake r. Bau mhard t t est ifi ed t hat re cent ly she dest ro yed t he spira l not ebo ok in which the cemet er y-re late d infor matio n was st or ed. Fur t her mor e, R. Ho ffm an4

1-06-1294

& Sons h as ref used to pro vi

de New Li

ght Cem etery wi th the in form ation Baum

hardt glean

ed fro m the r eco rd s she r ece ived fro m the p re viou s ca re t ake r, which Ba umhar dt t ra nsferr ed int o t he gr een no t ebo ok and s ubse que nt ly updat ed d ur ing t he ap pr oximat ely 30 year s she s er ved a s t he cem etery 's caretaker. F i

na l l y , R. Hof f man & Sons has re f

use d to provi

de Ne w Li ght C em etery with a copy of the m

ap of the cem

etery, whi ch New Ligh

t Cemetery

origi nal ly gave to Baumh

ardt and wh i ch Baum ha rdt mai ntai ne d aspart of

her duties a s ca

retaker. Afte r R. Ho ffm

an & S ons re signed as c ar et ake rs a nd r efuse d t o p ro vide Ne w Light Cemet er y with t he ce mete ry-r elat ed r eco rd s, N ew L ight Cemet er y hired N or man Schw ar t z, t he form er preside nt of the Jewish Historical Society, to prepare a new m ap of the cem

etery. In an effor t t o a chieve a n acc ur at e and co mplet e map o f the cemet er y, Sc hwar t z wa lked t hro ugh t he cem etery an d to ok measurem

ents of each

grave si te. The map an

d records prepared by Sch wartz, however, coul d n

ot prov i deNew L i gh

t Cemetery

wi th i nf orm ati on r eg ard i ng the own ers hi p of un occupi ed gra ve si tes . A s s uc h, New L i gh

t Cemetery

as serts th at i t has n o i nf orm ati on re gar ding whe re peo ple ar e t o be bur ied in t he fut ur e. Acco rd ing t o N ew L ight Cemet er y, t he ab senc e of

i nf orm ati on r eg ard i ng own ers hi p of un occupi ed gra ve si teshas l ed to a n um be r of ser iou s pr oblems; o n one oc cas ion, New Light Cemet er y att empt ed t o bu ry a d ece ase d in a gr ave si te that was already

occupied b

y the deceased' s husb and wh

en, i n f act, t he deceas ed was supposed to be buried i

n an adj acent grave si

te. In an ef fort to obtain the

contents of the green n

ot ebook and other cemetery -related in form ation m ai ntain ed by Baum hardt and R. Hoff

ma n & Sons durin g their ti me as the5

1-06-1294

cemet er y's car et ake rs, New Light Cemet er y fi led su it in t he circ uit co ur t of Co ok Co unt y seek ing bot h money da mages for co nver sion a nd injunct ive relief. I n bringing t he su it, it as ser t ed t hat t he green notebook and other cemetery -related records were prepared by Baum hardt and R. Hoff

ma n & So ns for New Light Cemet er y's benefit a nd we re New Light Cemet er y's pro per t y. Ne w Light Cem etery also fi

le d a m ot ion f or entry of a prel

im in ary i nj unction, as sertin

g that, in A

ugust 2005, it had pr ovid ed R . H offman & So ns wit h wr itt en ca re t ake r g uidelines, which co nfirmed t hat t he cemet er y-re late d r eco rd s mainta ined by R. H offman & So ns and its e mployees wer e Ne w Light Ce met er y's p r o pe rt y. F ur t he r , Ne w L igh t Ce met er y as se rt ed t ha t it wo uld ex pe r ien ce irr ep ar ab le harm if the preli mi nary in jun ction was n

ot granted in

that, in the ab sence of

the cem etery-related records i n R . Hof f man & Sons'posse ssi

on, Ne w Li ght C em etery ha s b een una bl e to conf i rm wher e pe op le are t o be bur ied. Fo llowing a he ar ing, t he circ uit co ur t denied New Light Cem etery 's motion f or a prel i m i na ry i nj unc tion and gran ted R. Hof

f man & Sons'motion

f or a directed fi ndi ng. New Light Cem

etery's tim

ely appeal f ollows. DISCUSSION On appe al, N ew

Li gh t Ce mete ry as se rtsth at th e c i rc ui t cou rt erre d w h en i t den i ed i ts motion f or a preli mi nary in jun ction an d when it granted R. Hoff

ma n & Sons ' m

ot ion f or a directed f i nd i ng . Sp ec i f

i cal l y , Ne w L i gh t Cemetery

as serts th at the c i rcu i t cou rt ab us ed i ts d i screti on be caus e New

Li ght C em etery sati sf i ed al l of the requ

i rem en ts ne ces sary

f or a prel i m i na ry in jun ction, i ncl udin g a showi ng of a reas onabl

e like li hood of success on the m erits. We a

gree.6

1-06-1294

The par t y seek ing a pr elimi nar y injunct ion must est ablish by a pre po nder ance of t he evidenc e ( 1) t hat he o r she has no ade qua t e r emedy at law and will be irrep ar ably injur ed if t he inju nc t io n is n o t gr an t ed ; ( 2) t ha t t he t hr ea t en ed inju ry t o him o rhe rwill be immed iat e, ce rt ain and g re at if the injunct ion is de nied, while the loss or inconve nience t o t he o ppo sing pa rt y will be com pa rati ve l y sm al l an d i ns i gn i f i ca nt i f i t i s g ran ted ; ( 3) th

at gran ti ng the pre li m i na ry i njun cti on will no t ha ve an inju r io us effe ct up o n t he ge ne r al p ub lic; an d ( 4) t ha t he o rshe ha s a r ea so nable l i kel i hood of prev ail i ng on the m eri ts of th e ca se. Illinois Ho using D evelo pment Aut hor ity v. Arbo r T ra ils Develo pment , 8 4 I ll. App. 3d 9 7, 102 -0 3 ( 198 0) . T he de cision o f whet her t o g ra nt or den y a prel i m i na ry i nj unc tion i s rev i ewed und er an abuse of d i scre tion stan dard. Central Buildi ng & C le ani

ng Co. v. Vodnansky , 84 Il l . Ap p. 3d 58 6, 588 ( 1980) . In t his case , it is clear t hat New Light Cemet er y est ablished t he first t hre e element s for t he i ssu ance of a prel i m i na ry i nj unc tion by showi ng, int er alia , t ha t t he ab se nc e o f t he ce met er yre l ate d r ec ord s h

as l ed to s eri ous

prob l em s, such as n ea rl y b ur y i n g a de ce as ed i n a g ra v e s i te alr ea dy o cc up ied by t he de ce as ed 's h us ba nd . Fir st , Ne w L igh t Ce met er y has de mo nst r at ed t ha t it will be irrep ar ably injur ed if its mo t ion fo r a pr elimi nar y injunct ion is no t gr ant ed in t hat it has no way of kn owing where to bury a deceased who pur chased a grave si te dur in g the 30 years R. Ho ffm an & S ons ser ved a s t he ce mete ry's ca re t ake rs. Sec ond , N ew L ight has sho wn t hat t he injury will be immediate , c er t ain and g re at if the injunct ion is de nied in t hat it ca nnot wait unt il the out come of the tr ial

to bury a deceased; the burials m ust o ccur im

medi ately an d the burial s must be sa fe a nd ac cu r at e. On t he co nt r ar y, t he lo ss o rinc o nve nie nc e t o R. Ho ffman & S o ns w ill7

1-06-1294

be com parativel y s ma ll and i nsi gnifi cant i f the prel

im in ary i nj unction i

s granted i

n that R. Hoff

ma n & So ns simply wil

l be for ced t o p ro vide r eco rd s for a ce mete ry t o w hich it no long er has a ny con ne cti on. Thi rd, New L i gh

t Cemetery

has e sta bl i sh ed tha t gra nti ng the pre li m i na ry i njun cti on wil l n ot have an i

nj urious ef

fect upon the gen

eral publi c. In fa ct, New Ligh

t Cemetery

has dem onstrated t hat the denial o f t he pr elimina ry injun ct io n w o uld r es ult in ha rm t o t he pu blic in t hat , w itho ut t he ce mete ry re co rd s, N ew L ight Cemet er y is unable t o p ro vide sa fe and e ffi cient bur i al s. Th e on

l y el em en t i n d i spute , th ere f

ore, i s th e e l em en t req ui ri ng a show i ng of a l i ke li hood o f su cc es s o n t he mer it s; ind ee d, wh ile t he r e is no wr it t eno r de rsp ec ifying t he ba sis fo rt he cir cu it court 's deci

sion, this record conf

irm s that the parties agreed that the m ai n i ssue i n di spute was whethe r New L i ght C em etery had dem onstra ted a re ason

ab l e l i kel i hood of suc ces s on th

e m eri ts. In thei r complai nt, New Light Cem

etery sought both a perm

anen t injunction a

nd m oney dam ages f or con ve rs i on. In orde r to b e enti

tl ed to a p erm

an en t i njun cti on, the pa rty se ek i ng the i njun cti on mus t de mo nst r at e: ( 1) a c lea ran d a sc er t ain ab le r igh t in ne ed o f pr o t ec t io n; ( 2) t ha t he o rshe will suf fer i rreparable harm

if the in jun ction i s not granted; and (3) that there is n o adequate remedy

at l aw. In re Marri age of Sef fren, 366 Ill . App. 3d 628, 637 (2006), citin g Sparks v. Gray, 33 4 I ll. App. 3d 390, 395 (2002). In addition, " ' [t]o pr ove conversi on, a plai ntif f m ust establi

sh that (1) h e h as a ri gh t to the prop er

ty ; (2 ) he h

as an ab sol ute an d u n con di ti on al ri gh t to the i m med i ate po sses sion o f the pr op er t y; (3) he made a de mand fo r p os sess ion; and (4 ) t he de fendant wrongful ly and wi thout authorization as sum ed control, domi

nion, or o wnersh

ip8

1-06-1294

over t he proper ty. ' " Film & Tape Works, Inc. v. Jun etwenty F il

ms , Inc. , 368 Ill . App. 3d 462, 475 (2006), quo ting Ci

rri nc i one v. Joh ns on , 18 4 I ll. 2 d 1 09 , 11 4 ( 19 98 ) . Aft er ca r efu lly reviewi ng thi s record, we must concl ude that New Ligh

t Cemetery

has overwh

el mi ngl y s atisf ie d its bu rd en o f demo nst ra t ing a likelihoo d o f succ ess o n t he merit s o f its ca use of a ct ion fo r bo t h a perm anen t in j unc tion and con versi on. Most notabl

y , we ar e pers uade d tha t New L i ght C em

etery has dem onstrated a li

kelih ood o f s uccess on the m

erits f or bot h causes

of action i

n that Bau mhard t , in her cap acit y as R. Ho ffm an & S ons ' employee and a ct ing as a car et ake r fo r t he cemetery, m

ade a cop y of the rec ords sh e re ce i ve d f rom the pre vi ousca reta ker an d di sp ose d of the origi na l rec ords . De sp i

te the f ac t tha t Ba um ha rdt w aspers ona

l l y res pon si bl e f or disp osi ng of t he o riginal re co rd s pr ovid ed by t he pr eviou s ca re t ake r, R. Ho ffm an & S ons maintains t hat t he copy of those records i s i

ts proper ty rather than New L igh t Cemetery's property. Wh il e i t is cl ear that Baumh

ardt was R. Hoffm

an & Sons's em

ploy ee rather than New Li

ght Cem etery's em ploy ee, t he fa ct r ema ins t ha t Ba um ha r dt wa s r es po ns ible fo r di sp o sin g o f t he o nly e xis t ing ce met er yre late d r eco rd s, w hich she had re ceived fro m the c emet er y's pre viou s ca re t ake r. This fact , in and of it self, su gge st s t hat t he co nt ent s o f the gr een no t ebo ok ar e Ne w Light Cemet er y's pro per t y and con f i rms th at N ew Li gh t Cemetery

has s ati sf i ed i t's bu rde n of de mons trati ng a l i ke li hood of success on the m

erits. See Shappert v. Roett ger , 3 6 I ll. App. 3d 4 52, 456 (1 976 ) ( t he ap plicant f or a pr el i m i n ar y i n j un cti on n ee d n ot m ake ou t a c as e th

at wi l l en ti tl e h i m or her to th e ul ti mate re lief he or she se eks ; ra t her , he or she must ra ise o nly a fair que st ion as t o t he exist ence of t he righ t clai me d pendi

ng a f ull heari ng on the m

erits). Faced wi

th this record, we must conclude the9

1-06-1294

ci rcui t court abu sed

i ts di scre tion when i t deni ed Ne

w Li ght C em etery 's motion f or a prel i m i na ry i nj unc tion i n that al l of the requ

i rem en ts, i nc l udi ng a li kel i hood of suc ces s on th

e m eri ts, were satisf ie d by strong and convi

nci ng ev ide nce. Fi nal ly , we note t hat the purpose of a prelim in ary i nj unction i

s to preserve the status quo pendi ng the outcome of the f

ull li tigation of

the is sues i

nvol ved i n the un derly in g dis pute. Indeed, "[w]hile preli mi nary in jun ctions are n

ot fav ored by the c ourt s, aversi on to them i

s hei ghtened wher e gr ant ing suc h re lief wou ld be t o g ive the re lief that co uld be o bt ained o nly after a hea ring on the merits." Il

l i n oi s H ous i

n g D ev el opm en t A uth ori ty , 84 I ll. A pp . 3d at 10 3. He r e, t he so le que st ion in t he und er lyi

ng ca se is, t o w hom d o t he ce mete ry-r elat ed r eco rd s belo ng? We re cog n ize th at i f New L i gh

t Ce mete ry ' s m otion f or a pr el i m i n ar y i n j un cti on i s g ra n ted an d i t re ceives t he ce mete ry-r elat ed r eco rd s, t he st at us q uo likely would not be mainta ined. On t he contrar y , f ull l i tig ati on of

the issues i

nv olv ed i n the un derl y i ng d i spute m ay be unn ece ssa ry because once New Li

ght Cem etery has been

giv en possess ion of

the green n

ot ebook and the other ce met er y-r ela t ed info rmat io n p r ep ar ed by Ba umh ar dt an d o t he r R. Ho ffman & S o ns e mplo yee s, it would be f ree to m ake a copy of th ose rec ords an

d the di sputed i ssues woul d be

rendered moot. In f act, t hi s record confi

rms tha t t he ci rcuit court judge understood t hi s quandary when she stated that if R. Hoff ma n & Sons were forced to pro vi

de New Li

ght Cem etery wi th the requested cemet er y-re late d r eco rd s, t hat wo uld, "in esse nce, [r eso lve] t he ent ire ca se t hat 's in fro nt of t he cour t. "In an ef

fort to avoi d the potential problem of renderi

ng m oot the is sues i

n di spute in

the10

1-06-1294

unde rlying case , c ou rt s have or der ed t hird p ar t ies t o ho ld t he r eco rd s in que st ion. This allo ws t he par t y seek ing t he pr elimi

nar y injunct ion t o ha ve limi t ed a cce ss t o t he infor matio n t o t he ext ent necess ary to avoid the h

arm the prel

im in ary i nj unction s eeks to avoid, y et mai ntain s the status quo pendi ng a h earin g on the me

rits. See Hoover v. Crippen, 151 Ill . App. 3d 864, 867-68 (1987) (g ra nt ing pr elimi

nar y injunct ion bar ring a ll of the par t ies fro m using t he pa rt ner ship's t elepho ne nu mbe r s, bu t o r de r ing t ha t fo r30 da ys, all c alls t o t he pa rt ne r sh ip 's nu mbe r s w o ul d b e t ak en by a third-party an

sweri ng serv ic e and di rected to the proper part y). In order to avoid the potential pr o ble m o f r en de r ing mo o t t he iss ue s in t his c as e, we be lieve it is ne ce ss ar y fo reit he rt he cir cu it co ur t or a t hird p ar t y appr ove d by t he circ uit co ur t t o t ake po sses sion o f the gr een no t ebo ok and other re l evan

t cem etery -rel ated re cords a

t is sue i n th i s ca se a nd to prov

i de Ne w Li ght C em etery with l im ited access to the inf

ormation to the extent necessary to safel y conduct the burial process pen di ng th e outcom e of a tri al on the meri ts. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reas ons, the judgm ent of the ci

rcuit court o f Cook County is reversed and reman

ded with directions. Rev erse d an d rem anded wi th di rections. O' MA RA FR OSSA RD a nd G AL LAGHER , JJ., c oncu

r.