Nos. 2-09-1140 & 2-09-1141 co ns. Fi le d: 3-26-10

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ HENSLEY CO

NSTRUCTION , LL C, ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court ) o f Ka ne Co un t y. Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 08-- L--687 ) PULTE HOME CORPORATION, ) Ho no r ab le ) St ephe n Su lli

van, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ HENSLEY CO

NSTRUCTION , LL C, ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court ) o f Ka ne Co un t y. Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 09-- L--139 ) DEL W EBB C OMM

UNITIES ) OF IL LINO IS, INC., ) Ho no r ab le ) Robert B. Spence, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE McL

AR EN de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: In appeal num ber 2--09--1140, def

endan t, Pul te Hom e Corporati

on (Pul te), appeal s an order of th e tr i al cou rt, J udge Ste ph en Sul l i v an pr es i di n g, d en y i n g P ul te' s m oti on to re con si der a n d vac ate an in terlocuto ry order requiri

ng Pul te to pla ce $229,781.62 in

to an es crow ac count pendi ng f in al res ol ution of t he und er lyi

ng case, a contract dispute between plain tiff , Hensley Constr uct ion, LLCNos. 2 --09- -1140 & 2-- 09--11 41 cons.

1 Del Web b i s a di vi si on of Pul

te. -2- (Hensley ), and P ult e. On ap pea l, Pu lte a rg ues : ( 1) "The t rial co ur t 's order o f October 7, 2009[,] was
r ev er sible er r o r , as it was a r efusa l to vaca t e a p ro hibited equ itable a t t achment in a case in which the 'sp ec ific f unds ex cepti on'does n

ot appl y "; (2) " The addi

ti on al argu men ts raise d b

y Hen sl ey i n i ts Response to the Motion to Reconsi der and/or Vacate were als o unavai li ng"; and (3) "Hensl ey

also f ail ed to carry

i ts bu rden of proof b ef

ore the tri al court." In ap pe al num

ber 2- -09--1141, defendan t, Del Web

b Com mun ities of Il li nois , Inc., (Del We bb), app eals an int er locu t or y or der of t he t rial co ur t , Ju dge Ro ber t B. Sp ence pr esiding, re quir ing Del W eb b to pla ce $97,759.10 in

to an escrow account pendi

ng f in al resolution of

the underl

yi ng case, a contract dispute between Del Web b an d p laintiff. On appeal , Del W ebb argues: (1) "The trial co ur t 's or der was a pr ohibit ed e quit able at t achment and the 'specif ic f unds exception' does not ap ply"; (2) "Th e n

ew argu men ts r aise d f or th e f i rs t ti me i n Hen sl ey ' s R ep l y to the trial court are also unavai li ng"; and (3) "Hensl

ey al so fail ed to carry i

ts burden of pro of bef

ore t he trial court. " We co nso lidat ed t hese app eals. We re ver se a nd r emand both cases for furt her proce edin gs. I. FA CTS A. Overv ie w Pla int iff is an und er gr ou nd ut ili

t y business s pec ializing in the i ns tal l ati on of water and sewer li nes. Pulte and D el

Web b are resi dentia l constr uction busin

esses. 1 In each ca se , pl ai n ti f f en tered i n to a contract with each def

endan t t o pro vi

de and inst all u nd er gr o un d u t ilit ies in r es ide nt ial ho me commun ities . In e ach c ase , p laintiff fi led a c omp laint ( late r a mended ) a gainst eac h defend ant alleging that pl ai n ti f f h ad perf orm ed i ts obli gations un

der the respectiv

e contract and that underthe term s of t he contract each defen

dant owed plai

ntif f m oney . In each

ca se , pl ai n ti f f f i l ed a " Mot i on [] to CompelNos. 2 --09- -1140 & 2-- 09--11 41 cons.

-3-

De po sit of Re t ent ion Fu nds in Esc ro w Ac co unt ." The t rial co ur t gr ant ed p laintiff's mot ions a nd ordered each de f

endan t to deposi

t fun ds i nto an escro w acc ount. The t rial co ur t denied Pu lte's
m otion to recons i der an

d/or va cate. B oth def

endan ts f i l ed ti mel y appe al s. B. Pl ai n ti f f v . Pu l te Plaint iff 's com plai nt ag ai nst Pul te al l eged that, alt h oug

h pl ai n ti f f h ad perf orm ed al l of i ts obligat ions under

t he co nt ra ct , P ult e "failed t o p ay for all cos t s ass oc iate d wit h t he und er gr ou nd constru cti on servi ces" an d that "t he r emaining amou nt due and owi ng to [plai ntif f] f rom Pul te under t he ag re ement is

*** ($229,781.62). " Pul te file d an answ er den y i n g al l mate rial al l eg ati on s. In i ts i nterroga tory answers, Pul

te expl ai ned, "[p]ursuant to t he wri tt en con tra ct e n tered i n to b etw een

Pul te and [pl ai nti f f ], the m one y cl ai med of i s n ot yet d ueto b e pa id t o [ plaint iff ]. This amo unt will be wit hhe ld un t il Pu l te has c omp lete d de dicat ion o f the impro vement wit h t he municipality. " The contract between

the partiescon

tai ne d a n " Un dergroun d U ti l i ti esSpe cif

i ca ti ons " p rovi si

on ( se cti on 17 .2)th at prov

i de d i n re l ev an t pa rt: "Ten pe r ce nt ( 10 % ) r et en t io n w ill be h eld un t il in itial Pulte approval . *** Af

ter ini tial approval is gra nt ed, re t ent ion will be re duc ed bythree percent (3%). Upo n f in al acceptance (dedi cation) to the re spe cti

ve m uni ci pal i ty, th e rem ai ni ng r eten tion wil l be releas ed." Pla int iff f i l ed a " Moti on to C om

pe l De pos i t of Retention F

undsi n E scrow A

cc oun t" (m oti on to compel ). In its m ot ion, pl ai ntif f ci ted the "Underground Util ities Sp ecificat ions" pr ovisio n, a rg uing that "[a]s part of this s

ys tem, Pul te would ret ain 10% of t he co nt ra ct pr ice in a re t ent ion ac co unt segregatedf

or th i s proj ect an

d r el ati n g to [plai

ntif f' s] work until

Pulte accepted

[pl ai nti f f 's ] wor k on t he proj ec t." P l ai

nti f f f urth er a rgued tha t "[u ]pon such ac ce pta nc e, Pul te w ou ld b e requ i

re d toNos. 2 --09- -1140 & 2-- 09--11 41 cons.

-4-

disb urse 7% of t he r et ent ion amo unt an d h o ld back 3% unt il the r esp ect ive municipality acc ept ed t he work." The trial

court granted plai

nti ff 's m otion, stati

ng i n part that: ( 1 ) plai

ntif f "h as establ is hed sufficient i

nd i ci a of a l i ke l i hood of succ es s on

t he mer it s o f it s c laim

to warrant t he Court 's exerci se of its e quit abl e p owe rs so a s to preserve the st atus quo unt il the mat t er can be re so lved o n t he meri ts"; (2) "[I] f

the re tention f unds ad dres sed i n the Motion are

no t sa feg ua r de d in an indep ende nt esc ro w ac co unt , t hen su bst ant ial and irr epa ra ble harm may be ca us ed t o Pla int iff due to such fun

ds being di ssi

pated or othe

rwi se c ompromi

sed "; (3) "Th

i s Court fi nds that th e $ 22 9,7 81 .62h el

d b y Pul te HomesCorp orati

on i n i ts re ten ti on acc ou nt re lating t o t he Winchest er Glen pr ojec t and w hich is the re mainder alleged t o be due and o wing to [pl ai nti f f ] i s a nd /or wo uld be pr o pe r ly t he su bje ct o f t his Co ur t 's f i na l orde r on t he mer it s o f t his c laim" ; a nd ( 4) "P ult e H o mes Co r po r at io n is hereby

ordered to deposit i

nto an in terest bearin

g escrow account the $229,781.62 held i n it s re t ent ion ac co unt relati ng to the Wi nche ster Gl

en proj ect." Pu l te f i l ed a m oti on t o r eco nsider and/ or vaca t e and attached to i ts m em orand um i n s upport of it s mo t io n t he affid av it o f Be rna r d P alla r dy. Pallar dy st at ed t hat he wa s t he vice p re sident of land de ve lo pme nt fo rPu lt e, t ha t Pu lt e " did not and d oe s no t maintain a se gr eg at ed ba nkac co un t so lely co nt aining

re ten ti on f un ds ," an d th at "P ult e s im ilarly did not and d oe s no t maintain se par at e bank acc ou nt s ho ldingretention f unds f or specif ic projects and/or subcontractors." Pall ardy al so stat ed t he followi

ng i n hi s af fi davi t. The muni

ci pality, the Vil

la ge of Carpen

tersvi ll e, had retai

ne d S mit h Eng ineering Con

su l tan ts to serve as

its consul

ting en gin eer on the Wi

nch ester Glen

proj ect. Sm

i th Eng ineering had p ro duc ed a punc h list o f unde rg ro und it ems t o be compl eted bef ore t he Vi ll age of Carpe nt er svill e wo uld g ive its final acc ept ance of p hase one of t he Winchest er Glen su bdivision,Nos. 2 --09- -1140 & 2-- 09--11 41 cons.

-5-

whi ch co nsist ed o f more t han half of t he ent ire p roject . T he pu nch list includ ed br ok en, cracked, and leaking sto rm sewer li

nes. The c er

ti f i ca tes of i n su ra n ce th at p l ai n ti f f h ad ori gi n al l y prov i de d to Pul

te in regard to the Wi

nch ester Glen

projectha d e x

pi re d a n d p l ai n ti f f h ad f ai l ed to prov i de

Pul te wi th cur re nt cer t ifi

cat es o f insura nce fo r a ny succ esso r c or po ra t ion o r a ny subco nt ra ct or s. I n add itio n, dur ingt he fir st qu ar t er o f 20 09 , p laint iff informed Pu lte t hat plaint iff was no longe

r an operational bus i ne ss a nd th at there wasno progre ss b ei

ng m ade on the W i nche ster Gl

en pun ch l i st. The trial court deni

ed Pulte's motion to reconside

r and/or vacate. Pulte fi le d a t i mely in terlocuto ry appea

l of the trial

court 's den

ia l of its m ot ion to reconsi der and/or vacate pu rsua n t to S up r eme Cou

rt Rul e 307(a)(1). 188 Ill. 2d 307(a)(1); see Doe v. Department of Profes si onal Re gul ati on , 341 Il l . Ap p. 3d 10 53, 105 7-58 (2 003).

C. Plaint iff

v. D el Webb Plaint iff 's compl ai nt agai nst Del Web b al le ged that, although pl

ai n ti f f perf orm ed al l of i ts obligat ions un

der the c on

tra ct, De l W eb b "f ai l ed to pa y f or al l costs asso ciat ed w ith t he und er gr ou nd constru cti on se rvic es pr o vid ed by [ pla int iff] " a nd t ha t "t he r ema in in g am oun t du e a n d owi n g to [p laint iff] from

Defe ndan t Del W ebb under the agree me

nt is [$93,759.10]. " Del

Web b f il ed an answer deny

in g all material all egations. Pla int iff f i l ed a " Moti on to C om

pe l De pos i t of Retention F

undsi n E scrow A

cc oun t" (m oti on to com pe l). In i ts m oti on, pl ai nti f f sta ted tha t i t wa s b ri ngi ng the moti on to " pre serv e the s tatus quo" pend ingthe

res ol ution of the ca se . Ci ti ng the "U nd erg roun d U ti l i ti esSpe cif

i ca ti ons "p rovi si

on of t he contract bet wee n t he par t ies (t he ident ical pr ovisio n it cit ed in it s co mplaintag ains t Pu lt e) , p laint iff alle ged th at s uc h pr ov i si on sta ted th at " De l

W eb b wou l d r eta i n 10 % of th e c on tr act pr ice in a rete nti on account segregat ed for t hi s project and relating to [plai ntif f' s] work until

Del Web b acceptedNos. 2 --09- -1140 & 2-- 09--11 41 cons.

2 Thi s i s the sam

e aff ida vi t t hat supported Pulte's m ot ion to reconsi der/vacate. -6- [plai ntif f' s] work on the project." Plai

ntif f f urther all eged that the provisi

on provided that, "upon such acceptance, Del

Web b would b e required to disb urse 7% of t he r et ent ion amo unt and hold b ack 3% un t il t he r es pe ct ive mun icip alit y ac ce pt ed t he wo rk. " P laint iff als o alle ged t hat beca use of t he co llapsing re si

den ti al re al estate mar ket i n th e c oun try , i n cl udi n g K an e C oun ty , "[ pla in

tif f] h as substantial

co nc er ns r eg ar din g t he ec o no mic via bilit y of P ulte and Del W ebb i n l igh t o f these ci rcumstances and ha s re aso nable co nc erns that De l W ebb m ay attempt t o ut il

ize the [plai

ntif f' s] re ten ti on fun ds to sat is fy

ot her debts an

d that such f

unds m ay then n ot be colle ctibl

e wi thou t substantial

additional

expense, i f at all ." Del Web b's response to plai

ntif f' s m ot ion to compel

asserted, in par t , t hat it d id no t have a ny "s pe cific ally

designated retention f

unds." Del

We bb a ls o asserted that plain

tif f was no longe

r o pe r at io na l. It suppor ted th i s a ss er ti on b y atta ch i ng P al l ardy ' s af f i da v i t, 2 in whi ch Pal la rdy stated that dur ingt he fir st qu ar t er o f 20 09 pla int iff infor med Pu lt e t hat pla int iff w as no l onger an operational busi ness. Del Webb fur t her asse rt ed t hat , be for e t he m un i ci pal i ty , the C i ty of Elgin, would accept th e dev el opm en t proj ect, it would l

ike ly is sue a punch

li st of addi tional work t hat

wo uld have t o be com pleted an d tha t pl ai ntif f "has n o me an s of

com pleti ng th e work." The parties

agree that the tr ia

l c ourt used

i ts i n j un cti v e p owe rsto o r de rDe l Web b t o de po sit $93,759.10 i

nto an i ntere st-be ari

ng e scrow a

ccoun t. The tri al courtfou nd

that plai ntif f "e stablis hed sufficient indic ia o f a

likeliho od of

succ es s on

th e m eri ts o f i ts c l ai m , i n cl udi n g a prope rty ri gh t to funds held in re t ent ion by Del Webb r elat ing t o t he E dge wat er pr ojec t and a n equ itable lien b y agr eement as

to th es e f un dsto wa rra n t th e C our t' s ex ercise

of i ts equi tabl e power s as t o p re ser ve t he status quo un

til the m atter can be resol ve d on i ts m eri ts." Th e t rial co ur t also fou nd "t hat if theNos. 2 --09- -1140 & 2-- 09--11 41 cons.

-7-

rete nti on f un dsaddre ss ed

i n th e M oti on a

re n ot sa feg ua r de d in an i

ndepen dent escrow account, t hen substantial

an d i rr ep ar ab le h ar m may be ca us ed to Plai nti f f due to such f un dsbe i ng di ss i pa ted or ot he rwisecompromised." The trial court ordered Del Webb "to depo si

t into an i nteres t be ar in g escrow acco unt t he $93,759. 10 held as retention fun ds." Del Web b f il ed this tim el y i nterlocu to ry appe al pur sua nt t o S upr eme Co ur t Rules 303 and 307(a )(1). 155 Ill . 2d R. 3 03; 188 Il l . 2d 307 (a)(1). II. AN AL YSIS A. Scope of Revi

ew In r ev iew ing an int er lo cu t o ry ap pe al p ur su an t t o Ru le 3 07 ( a) ( 1) , t he o nly que st io n be fo r e t his court i s w

h eth er th e p re v ai

l i n g p ar ty made a suf f i ci en t sh owi n g to s us tai n th e tr i al cou rt' s orde r gr ant ingor denying t he i

n ter l ocu tory re l i ef sou gh t. See Mohanty v. St. Jo hn Heart Cli nic, S.C. , 358 Il l . Ap p. 3d 90 2, 905 ( 2005) .

B. In Both Cases, the Tri al Court s Improperl

y G ranted In j un cti v e E qui tab l e A ttach men ts On appe al , de fen da nt s c laim t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t s' r ulin gs amo un t t o pr eju dg men t eq uit ab le atta ch men ts and that pl ai

ntif f h as f ai le d to establ

is h the requi si

te elem ents f or t hose i nj unct ions gran ted. A pr elimi nar y injunct ion is a p ro visional re medy gr ant ed t o p re ser ve t he st at us q uo unt il the case can be dec ided o n t he meri ts. Callis, Pa pa, Jac kst adt & Hallor an, P. C. v. Norf olk & W estern Ry. Co. , 195 Il

l. 2d 356 , 3 65 ( 200 1) . T o e st ablish ent itlement t o p re lim inary injunct ive relief, t he pla int iff must demo nst ra t e ( 1) a clea rly asce rt ainable right that needs protecti on; (2) i

rrepa rab l e harm wit hou t t he pr ot ect ion o f an injunct ion; (3) no a de qua te re med y at l aw f ort he plaint iff

's injury; andNos. 2 --09- -1140 & 2-- 09--11 41 cons.

-8-

(4) a su bst ant ial li

kelihoo d o f succ ess o n t he meri ts i n the un derl y i ng a cti on. Call

is, Papa, Jackstadt & Hall oran, P .C. , 195 Ill . 2d at 365-66. A revi ewi ng court wil

l rev erse a t rial co ur t 's o rd er gr ant ing a pre l i m i na ry i njun cti on o nly wh en i t consti tutes an abuse of d i scre tion . In re Marri age of Daven port , 388 Il l . A pp . 3d 98 8, 9 91 (2 00 9) . O ur

rol e reg ardi n g th e tr i al cou rt' s f actual f i n di n gsi s l i m i ted to det er mini ng wh ethe

r they are a gai nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. See Ap pelbau m v. Appel baum , 35 5 I ll. A pp . 3d 92 6, 93 3 ( 20 05 ) . A find ing is a ga inst t he man if es t we i gh

t o f the e vi dence only if the opposite conclus ion i s clearly evi dent or if the fi ndi ng i tself is un r ea so na ble , ar bit r ar y, or not ba sed

on the evi den ce pre sen ted. Best v. Best , 223 Il l . 2d 342 , 350 (2 005). How ev er , to the ex ten t the cou rt' s r ul i ng i nv ol ve s a que sti on of law, our review is de no vo . Jones
v. De pa r t men t o f Pu blic A id , 373 Il l . Ap p. 3d 18 4, 193 ( 2007) . The sec ond re qui

rem en t for a prel i m i na ry i nj unc tion , i rrepa rab l e harm, "occu

rs onl y wh ere t he r eme dy a t law is i

na de qua te, m ea ni ng tha t mone tary da mag esca nn ot ade qua t ely compe nsat e t he i nj ury and t he injury canno t be measu re d by pe cuni ary standards." Fra nz v. Calac o D evelo pment Corp. , 322 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 94 1, 947 ( 2001) . In each of these cas es, becaus e the onl y rel ie f reques ted by plaintiff was mo net ar y, injunct ive reli ef wasi na ppropri ate and t he r elief gra nt ed by t he t rial co ur t was an impro per pr ejudg ment equi table attachmen

t. See Calaco , 322 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 948. An equitabl e att achm

ent is the restraini

ng of a defen

dant's c ont rol

ov er prope rty i n i ts pos se ss i on

to satisf y a cl ai m n ot ye t reduced t o judg me

nt. See Kurti v. Sil

k Plants Etc. Franchise Systems, Inc. , 20 0 I ll. A

pp . 3d 60 5, 6 07 (1 99 0) . A

ttach men t i s a re med y b y wh i ch a p ar ty' s prop er

ty is sec ur ed a nd held t o s at isfy a debt that t he other party hope s to prove . Starr v. Gay , 354 Ill . App. 3d 610, 615 (20 04) . Se cti

on 4-
- 10 1 o f t he Co de o f Civ il Pr o ce du r e ( Co de ) pe rmit s a t t ac hme nt inNos. 2 --09- -1140 & 2-- 09--11 41 cons.

-9-

onl y 11 s pe cif i c c i rcu m sta nc es ; p l ai nti f f di d n ot plead t hese circu msta nces and, furt her , no ne ap ply here. See 735 ILCS 5/4--101 (West 2006). General ly , there is n

o such process as equitabl e at t achment i

n Il l i noi s. Bowman

v. Di xon Theater Ren

ovation, Inc. , 221 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 35 , 40 (19 91).

" '[T ]he theory of taki

ng away t he co nt ro l of a p er so n's pr op er t y by m eans of a n injunct ion fo r t he purpo se of antici

pating a j udg ment wh ich may o rmay no t t he r ea ft er be o bt ain ed by a lit iga nt is abho rr ent to the princi

ples of equi

table j urisdiction.' " Carriage Way Apartmen

ts v. Pojm an , 17 2 I ll. App. 3d 827, 83 8 (1988), quo ting Lewi s v. West Side Trust & Savi ngs Ban k of Chi cago , 28 8 I ll. App. 271 , 2 78 ( 193 7) . T he co ur t in Le wis stated:

" 'I f the prop erty of an ho nest , st ru ggling d ebt or co uld be ti ed up b y i njun cti ons upon mereunadjusted legal

demands, h e w oul

d b e c on sta

n tl y ex pos ed to t he gr eat est har dships and gro ssest f ra ud s, f or w h i ch th e l aw wou l d a f f ord n o adeq ua te r eme dy. ** * [ T ] o pr ev en t ruin to his b us ine ss pe nd ing su ch lit iga t io n, he wo uld be forced i nto unconscionabl

e compromi

ses involvinglosses

he would be unab le to bear.' " Le wis , 288 Ill . App. at 278, quo ting Shuf el dt v. B oe hm , 96 Il

l . 560, 56 4 (188 0). Thus, I llino is cour ts have consistently forbade such i

nj unctions. See Exc hange Nat ional Ba nk of Chicag o v. Ha rr is , 12 6 Il

l . A pp. 3d 3 82, 386

(19 84) . The on

l y exce ption is when the cl ai ma nt has an in terest in specif ic f unds hel d by the debto r; this is known as the specifi c fun ds exception. See K ur ti , 200 Ill. App . 3 d at 609 -1 1. The funds mus t be sp ecific to t he dispute in question, such as a fundf rom a tr ust in

question (see Kee sh

i n v . Sc h ul tz , 128 I ll . App. 2d 46 0 (1970) ), but not cash proceeds from the s al e of real estate (see Pojm

an , 172 Ill . App. 3d at 838) or trust fun ds that were not specifi c to t he di spute in

question (see Exchan

ge Na ti ona l Ba nk of Ch i cago, 126 Ill . App. 3d at 388-8 9).Nos. 2 --09- -1140 & 2-- 09--11 41 cons.

-10-

Here, it ca nno t be sa id t ha t t he fun ds t ha t we r e o r de r ed de po sit ed we r e t he sp ec ific fu nd s in que sti on in the u nder lyi

ng disputes. In i

ts motions, pl

ai ntif f al le ged that defen

dants hel d the dis puted fun ds in "ret ent ion ac co unt [s] seg re gat ed fo r [ t he Wi nch esterGlen and Ed gew at er ] p roject [s] and re lating to Hens l ey

's work un ti l [de f en da nts ] ac ce pte d [p l ai nti f f 's ] wor k on the proje ct[s]." Howev

er, not hingi n the rec ord sup

ports pl ai ntif f 's clai m s tha t the disputed

f unds we re held in a segregated acc ou nt for ei

ther the Wi

nch ester Glen projector the Edg ewater proj ect. Further, defen dants each attachedto th ei

r p l eadi n gsPal l ardy

' s af f i da v i t sta ti n g th at Pul te (o f which Del Webb is a su bs id iar y) "d id not and d oe s no t maintain a segregat ed bank account so lel y contain in g ret ention fun

ds." Thus, t he sp ec ific fu nd s e xc ep t io n d id n o t ap ply a nd t he t r ia l c ourt s ab use d t heir d iscre t ion by o rd er ing eq uit ab le at t achment s. M or eo ver , p laint iff fa i l ed to establ i sh that i t woul d suf

f er i rrepa rab l e harm without t he prot ection of the inj unctions or t hat it had no remedies at law for its all

eged injuries. Pla int iff cites Al l Seasons Excav

ating C o. v. Bluthardt , 216 Ill . App. 3d 5 04 (19 91), to supp ort its a rg ument t hat equ itable a t t achment s we re pr op er in thes e ca ses. In All Seaso ns , t he appe l l ate courtappl

i ed the sp ec i f i c f un dsexce ption to th

e p rohi bi ti on agains t equitable atta chm

ents. All Sea so ns , 216 Ill . App. 3d at 513. In All Seaso ns , real property that was part of the subj ect matter of t he und er lyi

ng li tigation was bei

ng used b y the defen dant as securi

ty f or bot h a f

irst an d a sec ond mortgage. All Seaso ns , 216 Ill. App . 3 d at 513 . T he appella te court hel

d that it was proper to order t he proceeds of t he se co ndmortga geto be he l d i n e scrow b ec au se

the rea l prop erty wa s a su bj ec t of t he l i tig ati on. All Seaso ns , 216 Ill . Ap p. 3d a t 514. In contrast, in

these cases , the fun

ds at iss ue had no sp ec i f i c c on n ecti on to th e u n derl y i n g di spute s. A s we p re v i ous l y deter m i n ed , pl ai n ti f f f ai l ed to establi sh that defenda

nts hel d the fun ds at iss ue i n segregated accounts or that t he spec if ic fun ds ex cepti on ap pli ed i n a ny other re gard. Th

us, All Seaso ns does not apply here.Nos. 2 --09- -1140 & 2-- 09--11 41 cons.

3 Pla int iff failed t o file t he co nt ra ct that co nt ained s ect ion 1 7. 2, t he "U nder gr ou nd Util ities Speci fi cations" provisi on. However, Del W ebb stipul ated in its repl y b rief that such provisi on was contai ne d i n a contract that the p arti es exe cuted on Apri l 6, 2006 . -11- Pla int iff contest s the character ization of the trial cour ts' or ders as equitable attachments. Pla int iff co nt en ds t ha t it owned

the ret ention fun

ds at issue and that t hus i

t did not need t o est abl

ish that t he f un dswere s egreg ate d or th

at the s pe cif i c f un dsexce ption ot herwi se appl

ie d. Plai ntif f ci tes t he con tra cts ' se cti

on 17 .2 t o su

pp ort i ts a rgum en t. 3 Th e re l evan

t porti on of tha t prov i si on provided: "17.2T en pe r ce nt ( 10 % ) r et en t io n w ill be h eld un t il [d efe nd an t s'] init ial a pp r o va l. Ini tial approval means [ defend ant s] mus t have a s-bu ilt dr awings , a n as- built sp re ads heet , a nd a let t er fro m the E ngineer st at ing t hat t he as -bu ilts ar e wit h-in co mplet e co mpliance o f the required toleran

ces (as presen

ted in s ection 9), and that a [def endan t] Land Mana

ger has wal ked t he com m uni ty a nd a pprov ed th e i

m prove men ts. Af ter t he i ni tial approval i

s granted, re t ent ion will be re duc ed t o t hre e pe rc ent (3 %) . U po n final accep t ance (d edica t ion) t o t he resp ecti ve m uni ci pal i ty, th e rem ai ni ng r eten tion wil l be releas ed." The pr imary object ive in inter pr et ing a co nt ra ct is to give ef f ec t to the i nte nt of the part ies. Galla gher v . Le na rt , 2 26 I ll. 2d 2 08, 232 (2 007 ). The best indicat ion o f the par t ies' inte nt is the co nt ra ct 's langua ge, given it s plain and or dinar y meaning, a nd co nst ru ingth e c ontr act as a whol e. Galla gher , 226 Ill. 2d at 233 . I f the l an gua geof a co nt ra ct is unambiguo us, t he co ur t must der ive the part ies' i n ten t f ro m the w ri tin g i tself , wi thout res ort to matters extri ns i c to the con

tract. Paul B. Episc ope, Ltd. v. Law Of fi ces of Cam

pbel l & Di V in cenzo , 373 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 38 4, 391 ( 2007) . T he pla in an d o r din ar y lang ua ge o f se ct io n 1 7. 2 p r o vid es t ha t t he fina l 3% will be rel eased "[u ]pon fi nal acceptance (dedi

cation) to t he respecti

ve m unici pality ." Not hi

ng i n the record in

dic atesNos. 2 --09- -1140 & 2-- 09--11 41 cons.

-12-

t hat t he r esp ect ive municipalities ( Car pent er svill e and Elgin) had

gr an ted f i n al ac ce pta n ce . In f act, Pa lla rd y'saff

ida vi t reveale d that plai

ntif f was no longe r operat iona

l. F urther, Pallardy s

tated t ha t Ca r pe nt er sville had a punc h list including br ok en, cracked, and l eaki ng storm sewer l

in es, and Del Webb alle ged that Elgi

n was l ike ly to have a punch

li st of addi

tional work t o be compl

eted. Theref ore, under the plai

n an d ordinary

la nguage of s ection 17.2 , pla int iff did n ot own the fun

ds at is sue i n ei ther case whe

n the trial court s ordered the funds

to be h el d in escrow. In its argum ent that it owned the f

unds at i ssue, plai

ntif f argues t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t s a ct ua lly ordered construct ive tru sts. P lai ntif f ci tes Bates & R ogers C onstruc

tion Corp. v . North Sh

ore San i tary Dis trict , 92 Ill . App. 3d 90 (1980 ), t o s upp or t its a rg ument . I n Bates & R ogers Constru cti on , t he p laint iff

sought a construct iv

e trust, arguin

g that t he def

endan t withhel d 10% of t he contract pr ic e as secur i ty f or com plete perf

orma nc e of the c ontract. Bates

& R ogers Constru cti on , 92 Il l . A pp . 3d at 92. The appel la

te court dis

mi ssed the count, which i

t stat ed was "co nfusing for a num

ber of reasons , in

cl udin g the fact that it seeks an eq uit able re medy, c ons t ru ct ive trust , for an acti on at law cl early compensabl

e i n m oney dam ages ." Ba

tes& R ogers Constru

cti on , 92 Il l . A pp . 3d at 98. He re, pl

ai nti f f sough t an eq ui tab l e re med y , eq ui tab l e a ttac hm en t, an d n ow contends that the

tria l courts' ordersconstitut e constr uctive trust s. Howev er, pl ai ntif f 's clai m s are co mpe nsa ble in

mone y da ma ges. See Ba

tes& R ogers Constru

cti on , 92 Il l . Ap p. 3 d at 98 . Thus, Ba tes& R oge rs Constru

cti on is he lpfu l t o de fend ant s, no t t o pla int iff. We also n ote th at a cou rt m ay i m pos e a con str uc ti v e tr us t to av oi d u n j us t en rich men t: when one ob ta ins mo ne y t o wh ich he is n o t en t it led , un de rcir cu mst an ce s s uc h t ha t in e qu it y an d goo d conscience

he ought not t o ret ai

n i t. See Swedi shAm er ica n H o sp it al As s'n o f Ro ck fo r d v . I llino is Sta te Medical

Inter-Insurance Exc

han ge , 395 I ll . App. 3d 80 , 108 ( 2009). However, unj ustNos. 2 --09- -1140 & 2-- 09--11 41 cons.

-13-

enr ichment i s b as ed

on an i m pl i ed con tra ct, and it does not apply here because there were express written con tra cts that governed the rela

tionsh ips of the parties. See Sw edish Amer ican Ho spit al Ass'n of Rockf ord , 395 Ill . App. 3d at 108. (We note th at there is no provisi

on in the express w

ritten con tra cts t ha t t he r et en t io n fu nd s w o uld be retain ed i n separate i

nterest beari

ng accounts, whi

ch is wh at the c ourt ordered.) Pla int iff al so characterizes

the court s' orders as constructive trusts via e quitab le liens by agreements, ci

ting Se re bo ff

v. Mid Atla

ntic Medi cal

Services, Inc. , 547 U.S. 356, 164 L. Ed. 2d 612, 126 S. Ct. 1869 (20 06). Howe ver, Se re bo ff

is dis tingui shab le from these cases

b ec au se th e h ea l th plan at issue in Se re bo ff

contain ed an "A cts of third Parti es" provi si on that "speci fi cally ide ntif ie d a part icul ar fund, disti

nct from the Sereboffs' gen eral assets." Se re bo ff

, 547 U.S. at 364, 164 L. Ed. 2d at 621, 1 26 S. C t. at 1875. H ere, pl ai ntif f ha s iden tif i ed n o part ic ula

r fun d d i sti

nc t f rom defendan ts' gen eral ass ets. Theref

ore, Se re bo ff

does not app ly. Fur t her , t he t rial co ur t 's fi ndi ng that there was an eq uit abl e l i en

by agre emen

t betw een plai

ntif f an d Del W ebb is against t he m

ani fest wei ght of the e vi den ce. Pla int iff also a rguestha t "th e s i tua ti on is analo go us t o t he co nt ext of a re sident ial landlor d's rete nti on of hi s/he r t enant 's sec ur ity dep os it w hich is to be r et ur ned t o t he t enant at t he end of t he t enant 's le ase upon surrenderi ng the l eased space

in sat isfact or y cond itio n." Ho weve r, in plaintiff's exam ple , the l andlord he l d property

that b elonge d to the ten

an t. Here, plai

ntif f f ai le d to establ is h that it own ed the rete nti on fun ds at iss ue . T hu s, pla int iff's se cu r it y de po sit ex amp le is not applicabl

e here. Pla int iff argues that "assum

in g arguendo t hat t he de po sit o r de r[ is] co nst rue d a s s o me f orm of att achm ent, it was st il

l properly en

tered ." Pla int if

f ci tes Am erican Re-In sura nc e Co. v . MGIC Inve st ment Corp. , 73 Ill . App. 3d 316 (1 97 9) , to supp ort thi s arg um en t. However, Am

erica n Re-Nos. 2 --09- -1140 & 2-- 09--11 41 cons.

-14-

Insuranc e is dist inguishable. In Am erica n Re-Ins urance , the

pl ai nti f f i ni ti ate d a n a cti on f orres ci ss i on of a re-insurance contracten tered i n to wi th the def endan ts. Am erica n Re-Ins urance , 73 Ill . App. 3d at 318 . Alo ng wit h fil

ing its c omp laintf

or r es ciss io n o f t he r e- insu ra nce co nt ra ct , t he p laint iff requ ested perm

ission t o d epo sit w ith t he co ur t funds t he de fendant s claimed t o be due and o wing pur sua nt t o the con

tract. Am

erica n Re-Ins urance , 7 3 I ll. App. 3d a t 318 . U nder co ur t or der , t he pla int iff deposited such

fun ds, as wel l as addi tional fun ds the def endan ts had paid t o t he pla int iff pur sua nt to the c ontract. Am erica n Re-Ins urance , 73 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 318-19. T

he court acknowl edged

th at th e tr i al cou rt' s or der w as n ot an eq ui tab l e a tt achm ent, sin ce su ch an o r de ris unl awful i n Il l i noi s. Am

erican Re-In sura nce , 7 3 I ll. Ap p. 3d a t 325 . Y et , t he co ur t held t he fol l owin g: "As we i ndi cated, h owever, the

f und at i ssue i s com

posed of m onies w hose pas t and f uture pa yment un de rt he r e- insu r an ce [ co nt r ac t ] is in d isp ut e, an d w ho se dis po sit io n w ill be de alt wi th in the t rial co ur t 's final or der . We cann ot agree that by tak ing st eps t o insu re t hat t he moni es ar e p re se rv ed unt il th at final r uling , t he c o ur t abu se d t he e xer cise o f i t s e qu it ab le discretion." Am

erica n Re-Ins urance , 73 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 325. Am erica n Re-Insuran

ce is d ist ing uis ha ble be ca us e, as t he co ur t it se lf stated, t he trial

co ur t did not order an equi tabl e attach men t. Am erica n Re-Ins urance , 73 Ill. Ap p. 3d at 32 5. Th e p laint iff requestedperm i ss i on to de pos i t its own f

undst hat t he de fendant s claimed t he plaint iff ow ed t he de fen da nt . T he r efo r e, un like de fen da nt s int he cas es a t bar , t he plaint iff in Am erica n Re-Ins urance was not being f

orced to deposit t he f

unds; rather, it did so volun taril y. See Le wis , 288 Ill . App. at 278. Accordin

gly , the reasons beh

in d the prohib ition of equi

table attachmen

t were not frustrat ed. In con tra st, pl ai n ti f f h ere s oug

h t th e a ttach men t of de f en da n ts' prope rty pri or to pro vi

ng i ts claim s.Nos. 2 --09- -1140 & 2-- 09--11 41 cons.

-15-

Ce r t ain ly, de f

en da n ts d i d n ot v ol un tee r to depos i

t the f unds at i ssue i

nto esc row acc ounts. Theref

ore, Am erica n Re-Ins urancedoes n

ot appl y . Pl ai n ti ff co nt ends t hat t he fact s her e ar e mor e co mpelling tha n t hos e in Am erica n Re Insuranc e beca use : ( 1) her e plaint iff "ac t ually earne d t he funds" ; and (2) if this court reversed the tria

l cour ts' or ders, plain

tiff would suff

er irreparable harm

because "there is a

substantial

li kelih ood t hat [defendants] mi

ght use [the fun

ds] as securi

ty f or some other debt or o therwise diss ipate these funds" or def endan ts m i ght b ecom

e i ns olv en t or ceas e opera

tions. Fi rs t, we hav

e al ready de termi ned that, under

t he terms of

the c ontracts , plai

ntif f did not ea

rn t he r emaining

3% of e ither pr ojec t , be cau se p laintiff fail ed t o e st ablish tha t t he municipalities gave their approvals of the projects. Second, plaint iff

failed t o e st ablish tha t denials o f its mo t ions fo r injunct iver elie f wo uld cause irr ep ar ab le harm . In its m

ot ions to compel , plai

ntif f m ade only gene ra l allegat ions r ega rd ingthe poor con di ti on o f t he r es ide nt ial ho us ing mar ke t in Kane C ou nt y, Chicag o, and t he country, and i t not ed that som e of def endan ts' c omp eti

tors had f i l ed f or ban kruptcy . Pla int iff at t ac he d t he affid av it o f Ke vin He ns ley, who st at ed t hat he wa s " co nc er ne d" t ha t t he mo ne y bein g h eld i n re ten ti on f or th e p roj ects wo uld be "use d for purposes other t han to pay [plai ntif f]." Pul te's Secu ri ti es and Ex

chan ge Com m i ss i on (SEC) f i l i ng sta ted tha t i t ha d b een n eg ati ve l y af f ec ted by the "w ea kene d de man d f or new homes"; had "experien

ced a net loss in each q uar t er since t he fo ur t h qua rt er of 2 006 "; and "expected t hes e t re nds t o co nt inue ** * a nd t he ma jo rit y of t he m

ar ke t s w e s er ve t o r ema in challenging t hr o ug ho ut 20 09 . " H o we ve r , Pu lt e' s vic e p r es ide nt o f fina nc e s t at ed in an af fi davi t t hat Pu l te wasnot ha

vi ng a ny probl em meeti ng i ts f i na nc i al obl i gations. Pulte's

2008 ann ual report statedNos. 2 --09- -1140 & 2-- 09--11 41 cons.

4 Bec aus e Del

We bb i s a d i vision of Pul te, thei r SEC an nua l reports ar

e con tai ne d together. -16- that "[w]e ended with $1.66 billi on in cash and no debt." Del W

ebb attached t hesesa

me docu men ts 4 to i ts res pons e to pl ai

ntif f 's m otion to compe l . Thus , the tri al courts' f i ndi ngs i n b oth cas es, t

ha t irr ep ar ab le ha

rm woul d b e c au se d to pl

ai nti f f be ca us e the f un dsat i ss uecoul d b e di ss i

pa ted or otherwi se c ompromi

sed , are a gai nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. In addi tion, pl ai ntif f argues that t he trial

court s properly

gr anted the inj unctions because se cti on 17.2 of the parties'

contracts cannot be in

terpret ed as p ro per co ndit ions precedent. We n eed not add re ss t he merit s o f this ar gument because we h av e a l re ad y deter m i n ed th at p l ai n ti f f f ai l ed to establi sh o t he rr eq uir eme nt s fo rt he inju nc t io ns, na mely, t ha t pla int iff wo uld suf fer i rrepa rab l e harm withoutth e p rote cti

on of th e i n j un cti on s a n d th at i t h ad no a dequate remedy

at law f or its all eged in juri es. See Call

is, Papa, Jackstadt & Halloran, P.C. , 195 Il l . 2d at 36 6, 371. CONCLUSION Thus, in appe al number 2- -0 9- -1 140 , t he trial court abused i

ts discretion when

it d enied P ult e's
m oti on to rec ons i de r an

d/or va ca te i ts ord er g ran ti ng pl ai nti f f 's m oti on t o co mpe l. Sim

il arly , in appeal num ber 2--09- -1141 , the tri

al court ab use d i ts di scre tion by gran tin g pl ai ntif f 's motion to compe l . The judgm

ents of the ci

rcuit court o f K

ane County

are reversed an

d reman ded for f urther pro ceedings. Reversed a

nd rem anded. ZENO FF , P.J., an

d BOW MA N, J., c oncu

r.