No. 2-- 06--0507 Fil ed: 1-28-08

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ RICH AR D GEHR ETT an d DENIS E ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court GEHR ETT, ) o f D u P ag e C o un t y. ) Pl ai ntif f s-A ppel l ees , ) ) v. ) No. 98-- L--754 ) CHR YSLER COR PORA TION, C HRYS LER ) FIN ANCI AL COR PO RATI ON, and ) AUTHOR

IZED A UTO R ECOVERY, IN C., )

) Defendan ts ) ) Ho no r ab le (N ap er v i l l e Jee p/ Ea gl e, Inc. , D ef

en da n t- ) Te re nce M . S heen, Ap pel l an t). ) Judge, Presi din g.

_____________

_____________________________ _____________________________________ _ JU STI CEZE

NO FF de l i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: De f en da n t, Nape rvi l l e Je ep/Ea

gl e, Inc. (or dea

l ersh i p), ap pe als fr o m a ju dg men t en t er ed in f av orof plai ntif fs, Richard and Deni se Geh rett, and agai nst the de alersh

i p by the c i rcui t court of Du Page Cou n ty f oll owi n g a j ur y tr ial on Janu ar y 27, 200 5. Defend ant also app eals fro m a judgment entered in fav or o f pl ai ntif fs and agai nst the dealershi

p by the trial court si tt in g withouta

j ur y as to
co unt V o f p lai

ntif fs' seve nt h amende d co mplaint ( violat ion o f the Illinois Co nsumer Fra ud a nd Dec ept iveBusi

ness Practices A

ct (Act) (815 I LCS 505/1 et seq. (West Supp. 1 997)) on Feb ruary 2, 2005. The trial

court heard the ev

ide nce re gar ding cou

nt V si m ul tan eou sl y wi th th e j ury tri al . F orNo. 2-- 06--0507

-2-

t he reasons that follow, we af f i rm asmodif i ed an d re man d to the c i rcu i t cou rt f orfurther pro ceedings.

BACK GROUND Defend ant is a Je ep /E ag le d ea ler ship lo ca t ed at 33 00 Og de n Av en ue in Lis le, Ill inois. A di spute bet wee n plaint iff

s and defendan

t aro se in June 1997 regard in

g plai ntif fs' le ase of a 1997 Jeep Gr and Cherokee Laredo f

rom defen dant. The veh

ic le defen dant le ased to plai

ntif fs was not equipped wi th a Quadra-Trac on- de man d-f our- whee l -dr

i ve sy stem , al thou gh the tran sm i ss i on i nd i ca torpl ate located nex t t o t he gear sh

if t leve r insi de the veh

ic le stated it was so equ ipped . I n Janu ar y 2005 , t he parties pr o ce ed ed t o t r ial o n p laint iffs' sixt h a men de d c o mpla i nt, w hich al le ged breach

of wri tt en wa rra n ty (count I), breach

of expres s warranty

(count II) , breach of

im pli ed wa r r an t y o f
merch an tab i l i ty (c ou nt III) , revoc ati

on of ac ce pta n ce (c oun t IV ), v i ol ati on of th e A ct (c ou nt V) , a nd
comm on-law fraud (count VI ). The rem ai ni ng counts of the si

xth am ended com

pla in t all eged bre ach es b y certai n de f endan ts that ar e not part of thi s ap

peal
. Dur ingtrial, pl

ai n ti f f s f i l ed th ei r s ev en th am en de d c om pl ai n t. The seve nt h amende d co mplaint al le ged breach of written warrant y (count I) , breach of express warranty (count II), breach of i mpl ie d
warran ty of m erc han tabil ity (count III ), revocation of acceptance (count IV), violation of

the Act (c ou nt V), and comm

on-law f raud (count VI). The rem ai nder of t he seven

th ame nded com pla in t was directed ag ai ns t the de f en da nts tha t are not part of thi s ap peal
. The on

l y cou n ts s ub m i tted to the j ury were the breach

of warranty

and com mon-l aw fraud co unt s. F or a r eas on no t explained in the record, th e b

re ach of wa rra n ty co unt was submitt ed t o t he jur y as co unt I, and t he comm on-law f raudNo. 2-- 06--0507

1 T he st ipu lat io n a lso inc lud ed Ch rysle rCo r po r at io n, wh ich is no t a p ar t y t o t his a pp ea l. -3- co unt was sub

mi tt ed as count II. The trial c ourt was the trier of f act on coun

t V. At t ria l, p laint iffs and d efenda nt ent er ed int o t he fo llowing st ipulat ion: 1

"(1) That the [d]efen

dants warranted the 1997 Jeepwa s e qui pp ed wi th a Quadra-Trac 4-wheel driv e. (2) That the 1997 Jeep wasdeli vered to [plai

ntif fs] without a Quadra-Trac 4-wheel driv e. (3) Tha t [Chr ysler] and [d efenda nt ] ha ve br eac hed t he wa rr ant y as t o t he 1997 Jeep. (4) That [p] l ai

n ti f f s g av e w ri tten n oti ce of th e b re ach to [C h ry sl er] a n d [ de f en da n t] on February

5, 1998, and this

notice of b

reach was proper and ti

me ly under the law. (5) [P laintiffs] and [d efenda nt ] ha ve fur t her st ipulat ed t hat t he dam ages to be assess ed i n f av orof [p]lain

tiff s, and agains

t [d ef en da n t], f or b re ach of wa rra n ty i n cl ud e th e a moun ts pa id by [plaint iff

s] a t t he t ime the lease w as signe d, in the a mou nt o f $2 , 05 8 a nd su bse qu en t ly 13 monthl y pa ym ents of $497.69 each , to tali ng $6,469.97, for a to tal of $8,527.97. (6) It is for the jury to det ermi ne whether [p]lain

tiff s are also entitled

to an aw ard of damag es fo r a ggr avat ion and inconve nience, in addit ion. (7) T he pa r t ies ha ve als o st ipu lat ed t ha t [ p] lain tif fs hav e re tur

n ed th e v eh i cl e to Chry sl er, and thi s too k pla

ce i n 1998. (8) The [d]efe

ndan ts have al so stipu la t ed t hat t hey are financially able t o p ay any puniti ve damages that may

be awarded." Test imony

a t t rial showed the f

oll owing. Pl

ai ntif fs le ased a 1994 Jeep Gran d Cherokee Laredo f rom d ef endan t. It wa s e qui

pp ed wi th a Quadra-Trac, ful

l-ti me , four-wheel-drive system thatNo. 2-- 06--0507

-4-

required no driv er in put. Plai ntif fs had research

ed the Quadra-Trac system bef ore leasi ng the 1994 Jee p. In Ju ne 1997, plai

ntif f Ri chard Geh

rett recei ved a c al l f rom Mi ch ae l "L ef ty " B i ond i ni, wh o, a cco rd ingt o Ric ha r d, int r o du ce d h imse lf as a s ale s ma na ge rfo rde fen da nt . Bio nd ini info r me d Richard that t he l ease on the 1994 Jeep was comi ng to anend. He invite d Richa rd t o c ome t o t he de ale r ship t o t alk t o him abo ut "buying out" the 1994 Jeep or purchasi ng or leas in

g a new 1997 Je ep. Acco rd ingto Ri chard, Biondin i told h im in this conver sat ion that plai

ntif fs had a "trem

endous
am oun t" of equi ty i n the 1994 Jeep t

hat co uld be a pplied t o t he buyo ut of t he 19 94 J eep or t o t he purchase or lease o f a new 1 997 mod el. Richa rd made a n app oint ment wit h Biond ini f or June 25, 19 97 , at 5 p . m. Pla int iffs ar rived at t he de al ers hi p a bou t 4 p. m . on

t hat dat e. Denise t est ifi

ed t hat Biond ini
was bus y . She and Ri chard were appr oached outside the deal ershi p by another salesm

an, later ide ntif ie d as Stort o, who showed them som e veh ic le s on the lot. Plai

ntif fs then f oll owed Sto rto in

si de t he deal ersh i p an d i nto an off i ce. Denise want ed t o k eep t he 19 94 J eep , a nd she as ked Sto rto about t he buy out Bi ondin

i h ad m entione d to Ri chard. Accordi ng t o Den ise, S t or t o t old her she ha d no eq ui ty i n the 199 4 Je ep an

d tha t a bu yout woul d be

"very costl y ." Deni se testif

ie d that Sto rto asked her what was i

mportant "in

the way of a car" an

d whether pla int iff s would cons ide

r another Jeep. Deni se said she would "def in itel y" consider another Jeep, butit had t o ha ve t he sa me op t ions a s t he 1994 Jeep, i

ncl udin g Quadra-Trac. She testifi ed that St ort o checked a com puter and then told her the deal ersh i p ha d no Quadra

-Tracs , that su

ch a v ehi cle woul

d be a sp eci al order. Acc or ding to Deni se, pla in tif fs then wen t back outside to wait for Bi ondin i b eca use t he y wanted t o t alk t o him abo ut t he b uy out on th e 1 99 4 J ee

p. A t 7 p .m . B i on di

n i b ec am e a v ai l ab l e to t alk to pla in tif fs . Accordin

g to Denise, he i

ntroduced him

sel f as a sa l es m anager. Deni se testif

ie d thatNo. 2-- 06--0507

-5-

Biond ini told th em th ey h ad n o eq ui ty in the 1994 Jeep an

d they should le ase a ne

w one. Either Deni se or Richard to ld B iondi ni that Storto had i

nf ormed them

the deal ershi

p did n ot have a Jeep wi th Qu ad r a- T r ac in

st o ck
. Bio nd ini sa id h e w as su r e h e h ad o ne an d h e w o uld "go fin d it." Denise testifi ed that she would n

ot have agreed to lease ano t her vehi cle fro m defenda nt if i t did no t have Qu ad r a- T r ac . Sh e t es t ified t ha t t his w o uld be a " dea l break er ." Biond ini was go ne f or a b out 3 0 to 45 mi nutes. Denise testif

ie d that Biondi

ni then pu lled up t o t he fr o nt o f t he de ale r ship in the 1997 Jeep t he y eve nt ua lly

leased . S he t est ifi

ed t hat Biond ini j umped ou t of t he vehicle a nd sa id "he fo und i t." He a ske d De nise t o g et into t he dr iver's s eat , a nd he sh owed her the "i

ndicator which

in dic ated it wasa Qua

dra-Tra c." She testi f i ed th at thi s i

ndi cator, or em

bl em, wasa pl

asti c part that appeared to snap i n a nd out. Accordin

g to photo s i

n ev ide nce, thi s part is l

ocated t o t he le ft o f t he g ea r s hift l ev er. Acc o rd ing t o De nise , a t t he b o t t o m o f the em blem were the words "Quadra-Trac" and a Chry sl er sy mb ol. She testif

ie d that she saw

othe r J ee pson th e l ot with s im

il ar emble ms that appeared to snap i n and out but were label

ed "Selec-Trac." S he knew that Selec-Trac w as a less expens ive option t ha n Q ua dr a- T r ac t ha t wa s no t full- t ime fou r- whee l drive but had to be m anual ly operated. Deni se testifi

ed that plai

ntif fs le ased the 1997 Je ep tha

t even i ng , b as ed upon Bi ond i ni 's repres en tation that it was equi

pped wi th Quadra-Trac. Plai

ntif fs did n ot test -d rive t he vehicle be for e signing t he l eas e, an d Den i se d i d not se e a wi

ndow sti cker on

i t bef ore si gni ng th e leas e. Deni se t est ifi

ed t hat pr imarily

she drove the 1997 Jeep. She n ot ic ed that it hy

droplaned. On Ch ri stm as Ev e, Ri chard was dr iving

wh en the Jeep s l i d of

f the d ri veway and got stuck i

n snow. In another inc ide nt a lit t le b it la

ter, Denise

was picki ng up her y

oungest son at school, and Ri chard was there also . Ac co rd ingto Denise, Richar d no t iced t hat t he whe els o n t he 19 97 J eep wer e no t t ur ning at the sam

e tim e. Ric hard comm

ented that t he t ra nsmission wa s no t enga ged . D enise t oo k t heNo. 2-- 06--0507

-6-

ve hic le t o d efenda nt 's ser vice mana ge r. She t old him that t her e wa s so mething wr ong wit h t he Quadra-Trac, tha

t onl y two w he els, i ns tea d of al l f our, were engagi ng. Af ter ins pectin g the veh ic le , t he ser vice manag er informed Denise t hat t her e wa s no t hingwrong, that the 1997 Jeep was a SelecTrac an d n ot a Qua dr a- Tr ac. The manage r fur t her informed Denise t hat t he 19 97 J eep had " a wr ong i ndi cator plate on i

t." Denise testif

ie d she t old t he se rvice mana ger she d id no t want t he Se lec-T ra c and she as ked what de f en da n t wa s " goi n g to do about t hi s." Accordi ng to Deni se, the servi

ce m anager sai d he h ad
or der ed t he co rr ect indicat or plat e, and t her e wa s no t hing further to be done. Whe n Den is e asked to sp ea k w it h B io nd ini, t he se r vic e ma na ge rt o ld her t hat Biond ini

n o l onger w orked

f or d ef en da n t. Deni se then

ask ed to spe ak wi

th de f endan t's m anager. T

he serv i ce m anager r ep lie d that he had al ready spoken to t he deal

ershi p's m anager an d that the "m

atter was tak

en ca reof ." A cc ordi

n g to Den i se, the se rvi ce m anager tol d he r that if she sti l l had a prob l em, she sh

oul d cal l her l awy er. Richard t es t ified ab o ut pla int iffs' visit t o de fen da nt o n Ju ne 25 , 19 97
. A sa les man wh o se na me Richard did not recall told them Bi ondin i wa s not availa

ble. Ric hard m entione d to the salesm

an Biond ini's statement thatt hey had e quit y in the 19 94 J eep . T he sa lesman re plied, "t hat was n't go ing to be a p o ss ibil it y." Ric ha r d t he n e xp r es se d in t er es t in a 19 97 Je ep wit h Q ua dr a- T r ac an d c er t ain ot her opt ions . Rich

ard testifi ed he an d Deni se went i

nto an off

ic e wi th the s al esm

an , wh ere t he salesm an "st ar t ed lo ok ing t hro ugh I believe a c om pute r at th at ti me a nd som e p ap erwork a

nd so on and so f orth." The sal

esm an i nf ormed plai

ntif fs he di d not have a

Je epwi th Qu ad ra -Tracon

th e l ot. Richard t es t if ie d t h at h

e s ai d h e w oul d n ot l ea se a v eh i cl e wi th out Quadr a- Tra

c. A cc ordi

n g to Richard, pl

ai ntif f s the n w ai ted approxi

matel y two hoursto speak

wi th Bi ondi ni
.No. 2-- 06--0507

-7-

Bio nd ini, who re pr ese nt ed himself to cus t omer s as a floo r manag er , t old Richar d he mus t have
m i su nd ers tood t heir t elepho ne co nver sat ion, beca use it w as no t po ssible t o r ealize a ny equit y in the 1994 Jee p. Richar d t est ifi

ed he t old Biond ini

plaint iff s wa nt ed a like vehicle wit h Qua dr a- Tr ac a nd he as ke d B i ond

i ni to cal l othe r de al ers hi psto l oca te on e. A cc ordi ng to Ri ch ard , Bi ond i ni "took o ff for a whi le ," and, when

he returned, he told pl

ai ntif fs , "[W]e got t he vehi

cl e for y ou. Foun d one ." Biond ini po inted at t he pla

te on the "shifter" and s ai d, "See. We fou nd a Q uad ra -T ra c fo r yo u. " At that point, pl ai

ntif fs agreed to lease the 1997 Jee p. Richar d t est ifi ed he wo uld no t have s igned t he lease ag ree men t i f he ha d kn own the 199 7 J ee p di d n ot have Quadra-Trac. Rich ard then testif

ie d to t he problem

s pl ai ntif fs had gettin

g stuck in the snow. He stated t ha t all t he pr o ble ms w it h t he ve hic le caused hi m to becom

e upset and aggrava

ted. Biond ini testifi ed he was a fl oor ma nager f or defendan

t in 1996, 1997, and 1998. He stated his righ t arm was paral

yz ed and i n a sl in g. Biondi ni recalle d that Ri chard speci fi cally wanted a Jeep wi th Qua dr a- Tr ac a nd t hat he had to "search the lot for it. " Biond ini test ifi ed t hat he did no t have
access to computers and that the onl y way he could tell

if a particul

ar vehi cl e was eq

uippe d w it h Quadra-Trac wasto look i ns i de th e v ehi cle at the

"sh i f ter." Healso state d he w oul d n ot co nsult t he wi nd owst ick er t o de t er mine w he t he ra v eh icle wa s a Qu ad r a- T r ac . He st at ed he r o ut ine ly de term i ne d a ve hi cl e' s op ti ons

by vi sual exam i na ti on rather than consul

ting pape rwork. Acco rd ing to Bio ndin i, t he v ehic le he pr es ent ed t o pla int iffs did have Qua dr a- Tr ac. Biond ini denied t hat anyone had told hi

m otherwi se. He f

urther deni ed that he swi

tched in dic ator s on the transm

is si on le ver to decei ve pl ai ntif fs in to le asi ng the 1997 Jeep. Samue l Guz

zi no was def

endan t's general manage r in June 199 7. He t est ifi ed t hat Biond ini
was a sa l esm an , not a f

l oor m anage r. A

cc ordi n g to G uzzi n o, the s al

esmen di d n ot h av e acc es s toNo. 2-- 06--0507

-8-

com putersat the time

pla in tif fs le ased the 1997 Jeep, and def endan t di d not ke ep an

y spa re tran sm i ss i on in dic ator pl at es o n hand. Guz zino t est ifi ed t hat a new vehicle ar rives a t defend ant 's pr emises fro m Chrysler w ith a win do w s t ick er t ha t de t ails all the options on the veh ic le and that an i nv oic e wi th tha t in f orma tion i s al so avail ab l e to the cu stomer, if the c ustom er asks to see

i t. On January 27, 2005, t he j ur

y re tur n ed a v erdi ct i n f av or of pl ai n ti f f s a n d agai n st d ef en da n t. The jur y as se ss ed ac t ua l da mag es in t he su m of $8,527. 97. Th e j ury as se ss ed da mag esf or ag gra va ti on an d in co nve nie nc e in t he amo unt of $ 15, 750 and puni tive da ma ges of $88,168.50. On Feb ruary 2, 200 5, t he t rial co ur t ent er ed a ver dict in favor of p laintiffs and ag ainst defend ant on co unt V (consum

er fraud) of the s even

th ame nded com pla in t. On February

14, 2005, plai

ntif fs fi le d a petition f or anaward of costs and attor ney fees . On October 17, 2005, t he trial co ur t allowe d t he pe ti ti on and awa rd ed p laintiffs the costs o f f i l i n g th e c om pl ai n t an d j ur y deman d, s er v i ci n g d ef en da n t, and fi li ng a second a

ppeal ( invo lving an en t it y t ha t is not a part y to this appeal ). In addition, the trial courtawa rd ed p laintiffs at t or ne y fees in the am ount o f $53,087.50. On Novem ber 15, 2005, defend ant fil

ed a po st t rial mot ion, which t he tria l courtdenied on Ap ril 25, 200 6. The t rial co ur t gave pla int iffs le ave to fi

le a supplem

ental fee pe tition, an d the trial court awarded supplem

ental f ee s of $4,400 on Ma y 6, 2006 . Def

endan t fi l ed a ti mel y noti ce of appe al
. AN AL YSIS A. Pl ai ntif fs ' Motion to St rike Def

endan t's Repl y B rief On Decem ber 7, 2006, plai

ntif fs fi le d a m ot ion to strike def

endan t's repl y b rief on the grounds that it contains i

n f oo tnot es facts de horsth e r ec ord an d i s n ot co n f i n ed str i ctl y to r ep ly i n g to
ar gument s in the app ellee's bri ef. W e ordered t he m

ot ion taken

with the case, and we wil l address t he motion n

ow. Su pr eme Co ur t Rule 3 41( j) (2 10 I ll. 2d R . 3 41(

j)) p ro vides, "The r ep ly br ief , if a ny,No. 2-- 06--0507

2 T his argumen

t assume s that the verdi ct was for comm on-law f raudra th er th

an br each of
warra nty, an i ssue we a

ddres s later. -9- sha ll be conf in ed strictl y to reply in g to argumen

ts presented in

the brief of

the appelle e and n

eed
co nt ain only

Argumen t. " Plai nti f f s do not p oi

nt ou t how in particular defen

dant's repl y b rief violates t his ru l e, an

d a v i ol ati on i s n ot ap pa re n t to us in r ea din g t he r ep ly br ief. Ho we ve r , de fen da nt 's r ep ly bri ef contains two foot notes that make f ac tual as se rti on s wi th no ci tations to the re cord. More over, it is cl ear that the facts contain ed i nth e f ootn ote s are de horsthe re cord. W hi l e this i s i m proper, rather than

employ t he har sh sanc t ion o f str iking t he reply bri ef, we h

ave disregarded any

im proper informat ion, and o ur dispo sitio n of t he ca se o n t he meri ts is b as ed

en ti rel y on i nf orm ati on contain ed in the record. See Tek

ansk y v. Pea rs on , 263 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 75 9, 763 ( 1994)
. B. Whether the Jury's Verdict On the Comm on-Law Fraud Co unt Was Agai nst the Manif

est Wei ght of the Evi

dence We t ur n no w t o t he mer it s o f t he ap pe al. De fen da nt 's f irs t co nt en t io n is that the jury 's v erdict in f av or of pl ai nti f f s on the count of comm

on-law f raud (count II as submi

tt ed to the jury) i s against t he manifest weight of the evi dence. 2 Defend ant maintains t he evide nce d oe s no t sup po rt a finding that defen dant knew

its representat ion was f

alse or that i t acted i n re ckl ess di sreg ard of

the truth . A
re viewing co ur t "w ill

not set a side a jury

verdict unl ess

the v erdi ct i s determ

i ne d to be c ontrary

t o t he
man if est weight of the evidence." Haw kes v. C asino Queen, Inc. , 33 6 I ll. Ap p. 3d 99 4, 1010

(2003 ).

" 'A verd ict is a gainst t he manifest weight of t he evide nce if t he o ppo site co nclusio n is clear ly evident
orwhere the f

in din gs of the j ury are un

reasonabl e, arbi trar y[ ,] and no t base d up on a ny of t he
evi den ce.' " Hawkes , 336 Ill . App. 3d at 1010, quo ting Carter v. Azaran , 332 Ill . App. 3d 948, 959 (2002 ). The j ur

y' s v erdi ct sh oul d b e u ph el d i f th ere is s

uf f i ci en t cred i b l e ev i den ce

to s uppor

t i t.No. 2-- 06--0507

-10-

Hawkes , 33 6 I ll. App. 3d a t 101 0. The appe l l ate court "w i l l not di sturb

a j ury verdict unl ess

there i s n o ev i den ce th at f ai rl y ten dsto suppor t t he verdict. " Hawkes , 336 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 1011. "[The] jury's v erdi

ct is e n ti tl ed to res pe ct a nd de f ere nc e, a nd [we ] wi l l not i nv ad e the f un cti on of t he jur y and substitute [ our ] judgmen

t for t he j ury's." Hawkes , 336 Ill . App. 3d at 1011. W e fi rst examine de fendant 's claim tha t plaint iff s failed t o p re sent clear and c onvincing evi dence that it knew

that t he 1997 Jeep i

t leased to plai

ntif fs was not equipped wi

th the Quadra-Trac fou r- whee l-dr ivesy

ste m . " The e l em

en ts of com mon l aw f rau d a re: (1) a f alse sta tem en t of ma terial f ac t; (2 ) d efenda nt 's kno wledg e t hat t he st at ement was false; (3 ) d efenda nt 's inte nt t hat t he st at ement in duce th e p l ai

n ti f f to act; (4 ) p l ai

n ti f f 's re liance up on t he t ru t h of t he st at ement ; and ( 5) plaint iff 's da mag esres ul ti ng f rom rel i an ceon the stat emen

t. " Conni ck v. Suz uki Motor C o. , 174 Ill . 2d 482, 496 ( 19 96 )
. T he firs t ele m ent encom passes three requi

remen ts: (1) t he def

endan t must ma

ke a misrepr ese nt at ion; (2) t he m isrepresentation must

involve a fact; and (3) the mi srepresentat ion m ust be material
. Hart v. Boehmer Chev rolet Sales , Inc. , 337 Ill . App. 3d 7 42, 751 (2 003 ). Defend ant in our ca se b as es i ts arg um en t on th e te sti mony of Bi ond i ni an d G uz zi no. Defe ndan t contends that any i nf ere nc e B i ond

i ni swi tched the Sel ec -Tra c i nd i ca tor pl ateon the transm

is si on le ver i n the 1997 Jeep f or a Qua dra-Tra

c i nd i ca tor pl atei s n othi ng more th an i m pe rm i ss i bl e i nn ue nd o, conj ecture, and spe culat ion, be caus e i

t contradi cts the "un reb utted" evi den ce pre sen ted b y def endan t. Howev er, " ' [i ]t is the provi

nc e of the j ury to resol ve conf l i cts i n the ev i den ce, t o p ass u po n t he cr edibility of t he witnesses, and to decide w h at wei ght shoul d be gi ven to the w

i tnes ses ' testim

ony .' [C i tation .]" Hawkes , 336 Ill . App. 3d at 1000. Defend ant recogniz es that it adm itted it m is represented the type

of transm is si on on the 1997 Jeep, wh en i t sti pul ate d th at i t wa rra n ted th e v eh i cl e to have Q uad ra -T ra c fo ur -w heel dr ive and thatNo. 2-- 06--0507

-11-

it deliv ered a ve hic l e wi

th Sel ec-Tra c. Def endan t seeks to und

o thi s ad m i ssi on by clai m i ng, " In h i n ds i gh t, Na pe rvi l l e J ee

p s hou l d n ot ha ve be en a party to thi s sti pul ati on." Defe

ndan t do es not argue that i t wa s m i sl ed i n to mak i ng the ad m i ss i on or tha t the ad m i ss i on wasthe

prod uc t of f rau d or duress. Furtherm ore, Biond ini admitt ed he represented the 1997 Jeep as bei ng equi pped wi th Quadra-Trac, and defen

dant's se rvice m anager adm

itted to Deni se that the vehi cl e was not a Quad

ra-T rac. Theref ore, t here i s no bas is

for def endan t t o att em pt t o withdraw the adm

is si on at this stage. De fendan t ma

in tains that t he j ury coul

d not have b elie

ved pl ai ntif fs ' testim ony tha t an "uni dentif ie d" salesman c heck ed t hro ugh pa pe rwor k and t he invent or y dat abas e befo re advising pla in tif fs there was no Quadra-Trac in stock, be ca us e G uz zin o t es t ified t ha t sa les men did not have
access to computer s. Guzzino also testified that the salesm en were required to se archthe l ot f or veh ic le s and that defe

ndan t did not keep Qua dr a- Tr ac indica t or plat es in st oc k. Biond ini testifi ed that he phy si cally searched t

he l ot to locat e vehicles, t hat he had no a cce ss t o c omp ut er s, a nd t hat he visu ally exam i ne d the veh

i cl esto de term

i ne the i r opti ons rath er th an ref err i ng to wi nd ow s ti ckers

or other pa perwork
. The jury co uld have re aso nably reject ed G uzz ino's a nd Bio ndini's te st imony. Bio ndini mi srepresented

hi ms el f to customers, in

cl udin g pla in tif fs , as a m

anager, when

he was act ua lly a salesman. The

j ury wo uld be jus t ified in

lo o kin g a sk an ce at an yt hing Bio nd ini sa id. T he jur y co uld have de term

i ne d that G

uz zi no' s te sti mony de ny i ng tha t the sa l es men ha d a cc es s to th

e c om pute r i nv en tory wa s i nh ere ntl y i nc red i bl e a s b ei ng con trar y to com mon sense. Mo r eo ve r , t he jur y co uld have fou nd Gu zzino 's t est imony, t hat defend ant did not keep a st ock o f Quadra-Trac indicator plates, not relev ant. That test im

ony was off

ered to show thatBiondi

ni could not have switched the plates. Howev er, pla in tif fs surrendered thei

r 1994 le ased

Jeep wi th Quadra-Trac to defen

dant. Biondi

ni hadNo. 2-- 06--0507

-12-

access to the pla

te on that vehi cl e. The i

ndicator plates are plastic parts that snap i n an d out of place. Defend ant suggests that Biondi ni , with his paral

y zed ri ght a rm , could not perf

orm th at maneuver. Ho w ev er, noth

i ng i n th e re cord su ppor ts th e i nf ere nc e that " Le f

ty " B i ond i ni wa s i nc ap ab l e of swit ching the

pl ate s u si ng hi s g ood lef t ha nd . He tes ti f i ed he se arc he d the l ot for the 1997 Jee p and then drove the Jeep t o w her e he pr es en ted i t to pl ai n ti f f s, so h e a pp aren tl y h ad n o trou b l e d ri v i n g w i th
one ar m. De fen da nt 's a ss er t io n t ha t t he sa les man wh o init ially he lpe d p lain t iff s was "un ide ntif ie d" and, therefore, presum

abl y a phan to m, is not support ed by

the record. T he sal

esm an was ide ntif ie d
as a Mr. Sto rto . Defen

dant argues that pl ain t if

fs did no t t est ify

t o w hat St or t o lo ok ed a t on t he computer sc r ee n o rin t he pa pe rwo r k h e c o nsu lt ed an d, t he r efo r e, t he ir t es t imo ny in

that r egard must be di sreg arded
. The jury hear d t his evidenc e, and it was wit hin its pr ovince t o d ra w t he in feren ce that Stor to was searchin

g thro ugh defendan

t's in v en tory of v eh i cl es an d di d n ot f i n d a 19 97 Je epwi

th Quadra-Trac. The evi dence sh owe d th at p laintiffs wer e ad amant t hey wo uld ac cep t only a Je ep w ith t he Quadra-Trac four-wheel

-drive system. Den

is e testif ie d that anythin

g else was a "deal

breaker." Af

ter luring pla in tif fs in to the deal ershi

p by tell in g them they had eq uit y in t he 19 94 lea se d J ee p t ha t co uld be use d to purchas e o r leas e a ne w Je ep, Biond ini ret ra ct ed t hat re pr ese nt at ion. The lease o n t he 1994 Jeep was ab out to expi re, and plai

ntif fs desi red to le ase a ne

wJee p wit h t he sa me op t ions, and par t icular ly the Quad

ra-Trac . Th ey

i nf orm ed Bi ond i ni of Storto' s state men

t tha t de f en da nt d i d n ot h av e a Qu ad ra -Tracon

th e l ot. Biondi

ni ass ured p l ai ntif f s he had one. Biondi

ni di sap peare d f or a co nsid er ab le p eriod of

ti me. W h en h e r etu rned , he i n f orm ed pl ai n ti f f s h e f oun d a v eh i cl e wi th Quadra-Trac, and he pointed ou t specifi call y the em blem on the i

ndi cato r plate. T hi s was plai ntif fs'
o nly signifi er that t he tran smis si

on wasa Q ua dra-Tra

c. D en i se tes ti f i ed sh e di d n ot se e a wi nd owNo. 2-- 06--0507

-13-

sti cker. Base d o n Biond ini's representat ion, plai

ntif fs en tered in to the leasewit hou t t est -d riving t he vehicle. Guz zino a dmitt ed t hat defend ant kep t windo w st icker s t hat det ailed o pt ions on particular veh ic le s an d t ha t invo ice s w er e a va ilable wit h t ha t info r mat io n if c us t o me rs asked f or it. Yet defend ant ch

ose not t o int r o du ce int o ev ide nc e a t t r ial t ho se it ems per t aining t o t he 19 97 J eep . T he j ur y cou l d h av e d ra wn th e i n f er en ce th at th e ev i den ce

wou l d b e u n f av ora b l e to d ef en da n t. In su m, t her e is sufficient cr edible evide nce t o s upp or t t he jur y's fi ndi ng that defen

dant knew the 1997 Je ep it del iv ered t o p laintiffs on Ju ne 25 , 1 997 , w as no t equ ipped wit h a Qua dr a- Tr ac fo ur -w heel-d rive sy stem . Defend ant al

ternativel y a rgues that plai

ntif fs fai le d to provide cl

ear and convi

nci ng ev ide nce that defendan

t reck lessl y disregarded t he m

ispl ating of the 1997 Jeep. Defendant relies on Ha rteHanks Com m un i ca ti ons , In c. v . Con na ugh ton , 491 U .S. 6 57, 105 L. Ed. 2d 562, 109 S. Ct. 2678 (1989 ), a libe l case a gainst a new spa per , w hich had no t hing t o d o w ith fra ud. In a ny event , w e believe the record ampl

y s uppo rts t he claim tha t defend ant act ed r eck lessly. Bio ndini te st ifi ed he reli ed sol el y on th e appear an

ce of th e v eh i cl e, ra th er th an on th e wi n dow sti cker or i n v oi ce , to det er mine what options were on the veh ic le . If the 1997 Jeep h

ad b ee nm i sp l ate d else wher e, and pr esu ming

the relev ant paperwork showed it was misp lat ed , t he n B io nd ini ac t ed in cul pabl e i gnorance of t he tru th when he f

ail ed to consult the do cumentation for the vehicle an d nevertheless

represented t he ve hi cle as a Qua dra-Tra c. A cc ordi

ngl y , th e evi de nc e of li abi li ty supported the jury

's v erdict f or com m on-l aw f raud. C. Whether the Tr ial

Court 's Judgmen

t In Favor o f Plain

tiff s for Consumer Fraud Was Agai nst the Mani fes t Wei ght of the Evi

denceNo. 2-- 06--0507

-14-

W e n ex t con si de r de f en da nt' s c onte nti on t hat t he t rial co ur t 's jud gme nt in favo r o f pla int iffs f orvi ol ati on of t he Act was aga inst t he man i f est we i gh t of th e ev i den ce . " The e l em

en ts o f a p ri v ate
cause of action f

or damagesbase d on

a v i ol ati on of the A ct a re: (1) a d ec ep ti

ve ac t orpractice; (2) intent by t he de fen da nt t ha t t he pla int iff r ely on th e d ec ep ti on; (3 ) t he de cep t ion o ccu rr ed in t he
cour se of c ond uct involvingt r ad e o rco mmer ce ; a nd ( 4) t he pla int iff's inju ry wa s p r o ximat ely caused by the fraud com

pla in ed of." Rockford Mem

orial Hospital v. Havri le sko , 368 Ill . App. 3d 115, 121 (2006 ). Altho ugh t he plaint iff need not pr ove t hat he r elied o n t he de cep t ive act , he must pr ove that t he dece pti on prox

i matel y caus ed h i s i nj ury . Con

ni ck , 174 Ill . 2d at 502. T he sam e fac ts recited above wi th referen ce t o t he co mmon-law frau d co unt ar e ap plicable her e and wil l n ot be repeated. Defend ant clai

ms that, when the tr ial

cour t awar ded plai

ntif fs a ct ua l da ma ge s in t he sa me am ount as those awarded by the jury on the br ea ch o f wa rr an t y co un t , pla int iffs r ec eiv ed a d o ub le
r ec o ve ry. Defe

ndan t further cla

im s that if the jury al so awardedactual

dam ages on the comm

on-law fraud count , plai

ntif fs actuall y recovered the same am

ount three t im

es. Altho ugh a pla

in tif f m ay ple ad and pr o ve mu lt ip le c au se s o f a ct io n, t he r e ma y be onl y one recovery f

or ani nj ury . Catani a v. Local 4250/5050 , 359 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 71 8, 728 ( 2005)
. For t he moment , d efenda nt leaves a side, for re aso ns discu ssed in the ne xt sec t ion o f the op inion, the

pos sibili t y that t he jur y awar ded act ual da mages on t he co mmon-law frau d co unt and pos i ts that we must vaca

te the dupli

cat ive awar d of

ac tual da mag es on th e c on su

mer f ra ud cou n t, which, def

endan t argues , would then v

aca te the a ward of attorn ey f ees . Th i s woul

d b e u n j us t to pl ai ntif f s. The l aw al l ows a p l ai n ti f f to pu rs ue as man y ca us es of ac ti on as th e f ac ts a n d g ood- f ai th plead ingpermi

t. In this opi

nion, we determi

ne that the trial

cou rt' s j udg men t i n f av or of pl ai nti f f s on t he consum

er fraud count shoul

d be uph el d. Therefore, pla

in tif fs are e n ti tl ed t o r eco ver fees. TheNo. 2-- 06--0507

-15-

sa me rationale i s true of t he comm on-law f raud verdict. Assum

in g the jury awarded actual dam

ages of $8,527.95 fo r c o mmon -la w fr au d, pla int iffs ar e e nt it led t o r ec o ve rpu nit ive da mag es . Co ns eq ue nt ly,
we dec line to vaca t e any

o f t he jud gme nt s. Ho we ve r , it is un j us t to de f

en da n t to al l ow p l ai n ti f f s to
recover ac tua l da mag eson th

ree al tern ati ve the ori esof

l i ab i l i ty, w here there i s onl y one i nj ury . Dowd & Dow d, L

td. v . Gl ea son , 181 Il

l . 2d 460 , 486 (1 998). Ac co r di ng ly, pursuant to o ur authority un der Su pr eme Court Rule 366(a)(5) ( 155 Ill. 2d R. 366(a )(5)), we reduce the actual da ma ges plai ntif fs can recover to $8,527. 97. On remand, the tr ial cour t is i

nstruc ted to e nt er an o rd er re flect ing t he reduction of a ctual dam ages to thi s am

ount. Defend ant asse rt s t hat plaint iff s' claim unde r t he Ac t is based s olel

y on the stipul ated
m i sr ep res en tation o f t he ve hic le, wh ich , ac co r din g t o de fen da nt , is simp ly a br ea ch o f co nt r ac t t ha t will not support a fin

din g of l ia bi li ty unde r the Act. De fen dant relies on Zank le v. Q uee n Anne Landsc aping , 311 Ill. App . 3 d 30 8 ( 200 0) . I n Za nk le , t he ap pe llat e c o ur t affir med t he t r ia lcou rt' s dis mi ssal of a co ns um er f

ra ud c omp laint, wher e t he allega t ions a mou nt ed o nly to t he de fendant 's f ail ure to f ul f i l l i ts contractual

obl i gations. Za nk le , 311 Ill . App. 3d at 312. Za nk le i s i n appl i ca b l e to
our cas e. Cou

n t V of pl ai n ti f f s' se v en th am ended com

pla in t alleged that defen

dant mi srepresented that t he 1997 Jeep wasa Quadra-Trac, and, as part of defen dant's sc hem e to defraud, defen

dant removed t he win dow sticker from

the veh ic le , or fail

ed to maintain t he st icker on t he windo w, so as t o d ece ive pla int iffs ab out the true opti ons on the v ehi cle an d the true m an uf acturer' s r eta il pr ice
. At t r ial, pla i nt iffs p resented evi

dence of the la ck of a wi

ndow sticker an

d the presence of

the Quadra-Trac in dic ator pla

te on the 1997 Jeep, when pl ai ntif fs had b een in form ed defe ndan t had no Quadra-Tracs
on the lot. Thus, the evi

dence es tabli shed a dec eptive

act and not merel

y a bre ach o f co nt ra ct. Co nseq uent ly, we r eject defend ant 's argumen t. We cann

ot say that t he trial

cou rt' s j udgm en t as toNo. 2-- 06--0507

-16-

liabil ity was aga inst t he manifest weight of t he evide nce. Acco rd ingly, we a ffi rm t he judg ment as

to li abi li ty on count V.

D. Whethe

r Defen dant Is Entitl ed To A New Trial On Dam ages Def end ant 's next co nt ent ions a re gr ou ped ar ou nd t he jur y's awar d o f act ual and punit ive damages. Defe

ndan t argues that (1) the jury

awarded no actual

damag es fo r c ommo n-law frau d and punit ivedam

ages were , there f

ore, i m proper; (2) the

j ury 's aw ard of punit ive damag es w as a gainst t he
ma nifes t weigh t o f the ev

ide nce; (3) the trial

cou rt ab us ed i ts d i screti on by fail ing t o mak e a finding that pla in tif fs establ is hed a pr ima fac ie cas e f

or the re cove

ry of puni tiv e dam ages ; a nd (4 ) the trial courtab us ed it s d isc r et io n in d en ying de fen da nt 's mo t io n fo ra r emit t itur on the puni tive da ma ges awar d. 1. Wh

ether Verdict Form

A A warded Actual

Dam ages For Comm

on-Law Fraud I nit iall y, defen

dant argues that the v erdict does not support a fi ndi ng that the jury

awarded actual damag es p ur sua nt t o t he com mon- l aw f rau d c l ai m . If the j ury di d n ot award act ual dam

ages, defend ant reasons, i

t cou l d n ot award p un

i ti v e dam ag es . Acc ordi

n g to def en da n t, the stipul

ation that act ual da mages wer e $8 ,5 27. 97 w as e nt er ed o n t he br each of wa rra nty cou nt, not the comm

on-law fraud count. Therefore, defen

dant concl

udes that the jury

awarded no actual dam

ages f orco mmonla w fraud. T his i ss ue ra i se s th e q ue sti on of th e s uf f i ci en cy of th e g en eral v erdi ct i n th i s c as e. "Th e v

al i di ty of a g en er al v er dic t is t est ed by whe t her it exp re sses t he inte nt of t he jur y so t hat t he trial court can un de r st an d it and enter judgmen t t hereon." In

reEs tate of Pay ton , 79 Il l . Ap p. 3d 73 2, 739 ( 1979)
. Here, the tri

al court sub

m i tted two sepa

rate the orie s of

l i ab i l i ty to the j ury, bre ach

of w arra nt y and
comm on-law fraud. The parti es stipul

ated that $8, 527 .9 7 wa s t he amo unt of d amage s o n t he breachNo. 2-- 06--0507

-17-

of warra nty coun t. The trial

court in structed t he j ury that thi s am ount represented damages for breach of war ra nt y. The trial

court did n

ot si mi la rly in struct t he j ury wi

th respectto the fraud count. Instead, t he trial court inst ructed the jury that it was to deter mi ne whether plai

ntif fs suf fered damages as a
r es ult o f t he ir

reli ance on the m

is representation an

d that defenda

nt denied that pla

in tif fs were dam aged. The jury was i nstructed to return

Ve r dic t Fo r m A if

it found i n f avor o f pl ain tiff s and again

st defendan t o n any count . Verdict Fo rm A provided three lin es: "We as sess actual

dam ages i n the sum of $8,527.97. We ass ess aggravation an d in conven ie nce i n the am ount o f $ _______. We awar d pun i tiv e dam ages i n the su m of $ _____

_____ _." The fi gur e $ 8, 527 .9 7 wa s pr epr inted on t he fo rm. T he jur y fi lled in the line fo r a ggr avat ion and in conven ie nce wi th the sum of $15,750, and the l

in e for puni tive da ma ges wi th the sum of $88,168.50. Defend ant asserts that the jury awarded ac t ua l d ama ge s fo rbr ea ch o f w ar r an t y, a count upon whi ch it co uld no t leg ally a ss es s p un it ive da ma g es, beca use t he pr epr inted amou nt of d amage s wa s t he dam ages sti pula ted to for breach

of warranty , and the award f or aggravation and i

nconveni ence was ba sed on an i nstructi on tha

t the j ury could f i nd a ddi tion al dam ages f or brea ch of w arran

ty. It is not cle ar to us that thi s i s the onl y conc l usi on to be drawn
. The j ur

y wa s i n str uc ted to
use Verdict

For m A i f i t f oun d f or pl ai nti f f s on any count. Thus, the fact that the jury returned Verdict Form A indicat es t hat it fo und i

n pl ai n ti f f s' f av or on th e c om mon -law f ra ud cou n t. Conv erse l y , the j ury wa s a l so i ns tructed tha t, i f i t f oun d i n f av or of defen dant on the comm

on-law f raud cou n t, i t wa s to return Verdict Fo rm B. It did no t re t ur n Ver dict Fo rm B, which su ppo rt s t he co nclusio n t hat it fo und i n pl ai ntif f s'f av or on the

com mon-l aw f raud c ount. Moreov er, because the jury was i nstructed that punit iveda

mag esappl

i ed onl y to com m on- l aw f rau d, i ts a wa rd of puni tive da ma ges f urthersu pp ortsNo. 2-- 06--0507

-18-

t he con cl us i on th at i t found in f

av or of p laintiffs on t hat co unt . We ar e no t long det ained by defend ant 's as serti on th

at the s um of $8,527 .97, pre

pri nted on Ve rdict Form

A, represented dam

ages o nly for breach

of warranty , because def endan t, in i ts openin g bri ef, i n i ts reply bri ef, an d at or al
argu men t, conceded t hat plai

ntif fs' actual damages on all counts were $8, 527.97. Thus, t he r e is
evi den ce i n the rec ord both to su

pport and to in

va l i date th e v erdi

ct. Howev er, wene ed

not res ol ve thi s iss ue . De f en da nt d i d n ot obj ec t to Ve rdi

ct F orm A or tender a re medial for m or a sp ecial inte rr og at or y. "On a ppe al, a litigant waives t he r ight to ob j ec t to instr uct ions or verdi

ct f orm s th at a regi v en to a ju ry wh en t he pa r t y fails to make a sp ec i f i c ob j ec ti on dur ingthe jury

in struction conferen

ce or when the f

orm i s read

to the jury." Compton v. Ubi ll uz , 353 I ll. Ap p. 3d 86 3, 86 9 ( 20 04 )
. "E ve n if t he lit iga nt pr o pe r ly o bje ct s t o an inst ruc t io n o rve r dic t fo r m, [he] must stil l s ubm it a rem edi al in struction or verdict f

orm to t he trial

cour t. " Com

pton , 353 Ill . App. 3d at 86 9. A ccordi

ngl y , we f i nd th at def endan t wai ve d this i ssue. At oral argum

ent, defen dant urged us to co nsi

der this is sue de sp i

te i ts wai ver i n f urtherance of th i s c our t' s res ponsi b i l i ty to prov i de

a j us t result an d to m

ai nta i n a sou nd an d un i f orm bod y of pr ece dent pur sua nt t o t he ho lding in Dil lon v . Evanston Hospital , 199 Ill . 2d 483, 505 (2 002). We
n ote de f en da n t di d n ot ci te Di l l on in its b rief s, nor did i

t seek le ave to cite addi

tional authority at oral
argu men t. Howev er , p laint iff

s did no t objec t , a nd we dist inguish Di l l on from the present case. Defend ant argue d tha

t the i nstructi ons i

n th i s ca se, ta ken as a w

hole , were so confusi

ng that they mi sl ed the j ury . Wh

i l e we a gree th at Verdi ct Form A , th e on l y i ns tructi on r ai se d by de f en da nt, i s n ot
a m odel of cl ari ty , we de term i ne tha t thi s is n ot a p rope

r ca se i n w hi ch to ove rri decon si de rati ons of wai ver. In Di

l l on , ou r s up re me c our

t re cog n ize d a n ew el em en t of da mag es , th e inc rea se d risk of f uture i nj ury . Di l l on , 199 Il

l . 2d at 50 3. Bec aus e the

re wa s no pa t t er n ins t ruc t io n o n t his element andNo. 2-- 06--0507

-19-

t he inst ruc t io n g ive n t o t he jur y wa s ina de qu at e, t he su pr eme co ur t o r de r ed a r et r ial. Di l l on , 19 9 I ll. 2d at 50 8. Su ch a s it ua t io n is n o t pr es en t inour ca se . H ere, de f

en da n t si m pl y di d n ot ob j ec t to Verdict Fo r m A, t en de rit s o wn ve r dic t fo r m, or t ender a spec ia l inter ro gat or y, eve n t hou gh it had t he opportuni ty to do so. 2. Wh ether the Award of Pun

iti ve Dam ages Was Agai

nst the Man

if est Wei ght of the Evi

dence Defend ant contends that , wh ile it st ipulat ed it misrepr ese nt ed t he 19 97 J eep as ha ving t he Quad ra -Tra c t r an smis sio n sys t em, t he misr ep r es en t at io n w as mad e w it ho ut an y malic io us o rev il i n ten t. Defend ant argue s the evi dence sh owed that t he m

is representation was s im

ply a m is take. "[P ]u nitive dam

ages m ay be awarded wh

ere the wrongful

ac t co mmit t ed by t he de fen da nt 'is characterized

by wa nton ne ss , m al i ce , opp res si

on or ot her ci rcum stan ces of a ggrav ati on.'[Ci

tation ]." Los A m i gosSup erm

ark et, Inc . v . Me

tropol i tan Ba nk & Trust Co. , 306 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 11 5, 129 ( 1999)
. Pu nitive damages are p ro per in a frau d ac t ion whe re t he false r epr ese nt at ions a re want only and de sig ne dly

made. Los

A m i gos , 306 Ill . App. 3d a t 130 . We re view t he jur y's asse ssment of p unit ive dam ages on a m an i f est-we i ght-of

-the-e vi den ce standard. Franz v . Cala co Devel opmen t Cor p. , 352 Il l . Ap p. 3d 11 29, 114 5 (200 4). In our cas e, the

j ury he ard the evi den ce a nd d eterm i ne d tha t puni tiv e dam ages were warranted. T his determi

nation was not again

st the man if est weigh t o f the ev ide nce. The j ury coul

d have bel ie ved that Sto rto to ld pl

ai ntif fs the trut h when h

e i nf ormed them

defen dant had no Quadra-Trac vehi

cl es on t he lo t and that Biondini

in tentionall y f alsi fi ed the appear ance of the 1997 Jeep he leased to plain tiff s. Alt er na t ive ly, t he jury

could have reasona

bl y b elie ved that Biondin

i was guil ty of gross n

eglige nce that showed a w an ton di sreg ard f

or p l ai n ti f f s' ri gh ts w h en h e f ai l ed to l ook a

t th e pap erwork t hatNo. 2-- 06--0507

-20-

accompan ie d t he 1997 Jeep to veri

f y i t was e qui pped wi th Qua dra-Tra c. Accordi

ngl y , the j ury 's awar d of puni tiv e dam ages wasnot aga

i nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. 3. Wh ether the Trial

Court Ab

used Its Dis cretion by

Fai li ng to Make a Fi

ndi ng That the Evi

dence Establi shed a Pri ma Faci e Case f or Puniti ve Dam ages Defend ant argues t hat the t rial cour t abused its di sc retionby fai li ng to make a f

in din g that pla int iff s est ablishe d a pr ima fac ie cas e f or the re cove

ry of puni tiv e dam ages . Once a

tria l court determi nesthat puniti

ve dam ages are, as a m

atter of la w, appropriate to the cause of ac tion, the trial
co ur t 's de cisi

on to su b m i t t he issue t o t he jur y will not be r ever sed abse nt an abu se o f discr et ion. Fra nz , 352 Ill . App. 3d at 1138. Th e re cord doe s n ot di sc l ose

th at th e tr i al cou rt hel d a se pa ra te hear ingat which it mad e a s pec ifi c finding t hat punit ivedam ages were appropriate. However, t he trial courtsu b m i tted to th e j ur

y th e puni tive da m ag esi ns tructi on a nd the ve rdi ct f orm wi th a l i ne f or pun i tiv e dam ages . Implicit in t he de cision t o inst ru ct t he jury on the is sue of pun

iti ve dam ages was t he trial court 's determ

in ation that pla

in tif fs had establ

is hed a pr ima fac ie case for such damages. Fra nz , 352 Ill . App. 3d

at 1138 ("[T]he tr ia

l co ur t may submit t he issue of p unit ive damag es t o t he j ury only if the pla

in tif f h as ma de out a pr ima fac ie case f or such dam

ages"). Def

endan t has provi ded
no authority f

or its position tha

t t he trial court needed

to ma ke an explicit finding o n t he r eco rd . T he de ci si on whet her t o inst ru ct t he jur y on pu nitive d amage s wa s made by th e tr i al cou rt, an d the d ec i si

on whether t o a war d pu nitive dam

ages was m

ade by the jury. This

was appropriate. Kn

echt v. Radi

ac Ab rasi ves, Inc. , 219 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 97 9, 983- 84 (19 91). 4. Wh ethe r the Tri al Court Ab

use d Its Discre

tion Wh en It Den i ed De f endan t's M otion

f or a Rem ittitur of the Puni

tive D am agesNo. 2-- 06--0507

-21-

Defend ant 's contention that the trial court should hav e gr ant ed a re mitt itu r o f the punit ive dam ages award is , in

essen ce, the sam

e as a contenti on that the a mount of pun iti ve dam ages was excess iv e. Fra nz , 352 Ill . App. 3d at 1145. Because def endan t waived i ts argumen

t t hat the j ury f

ai le d to awar d act ual da mages for co mmon-law frau d, we c ons ider $8, 527 .9 7 t o be t he am ount o f actual dam ages upon wh i ch the j ury base d i ts a wa rd of punit ivedam

ages. Pla in tif fs argue that we must add t he su m awarde d f

or aggravation a

nd i nconveni ence, $15,750, becaus e this sum was awarded as consequential

dam ages f or fra ud. We di sag

ree. The j ur

y wa s c l ea rl y i n str uc ted th at i t wa s to consider ag gra va ti on and inco nvenience in awar ding ad dit ional da mages for bre ach o f war ra nt y, which pla in tiff s'
coun sel ackn owl edge d at oral

argum en t. In dete r minin g whe t her an aw ar d is exc essive, Illinois co ur t s loo k t o fa ct -sp ecific re levant circumstances, including: "(1 ) t he nat ur e and eno rmity o f the wr ong ; (2 ) t he financial st at us o f the de f en da n t; and (3) t he pot ential

li abili ty of the defendan

t. " Fra nz , 352 Ill . App. 3d at 11 43
. I n t his case, Bi on di n i repr es en ted to Ri chard i

n a tel ephone cal

l that pl ai nti f f s h ad a " trem en dous " a moun t of eq uit y in their 1994 l

eased Jeep that could b e applie d to the le ase of a n ew Jeep or a "bu yout " o f the le ase. Thi s representation was fal se. Bi ondin

i f al sel y repres ented

hi m se l f asei the r a s al esman ag er or a floo r manag er . D efenda nt knew that pl ai ntif fs would not purchase or l ease a n ew Jeep tha

t did n ot have Quadra-Trac. St ort o looked at de f en da nt' s i nv en tory an d de term i ne d that d ef

en da nt d i d n ot have
a Quadra-Trac in

stock. T he vehi

cl e Biondin

i l ocated had a Quadra- Tra c indicat or plat e but no wi ndow sti cker to verif

y that the vehi cle was so equ i pped . The

j ury could draw

the concl usi on that Biond ini swi tched i ndicator plates and rem

oved the wi

ndow sticker i

n orderto deceive pl

ain tiff s. On these facts, we can

not say that t he j ury' s award was ex cessi ve as a m atter of comm

on-law princi

ples,No. 2-- 06--0507

-22-

whi ch req ui re th e a wa rd to b e the p roduct of

pa ss i on, pa

rti al i ty , or c orru

ption in order t o be exces si

ve. Fra nz , 352 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 1138. Defend ant next asse rts th at t he aw ar d vio late d it s du e pr oc ess r ight s, be cau se t her e wa s no evi dence that d efendan

t's conduct was "reprehensible" or in tended t o deceive or t rick pl ain tiff s. Gr o ss ly ex ce ss ive pu nit iv e damages ar e i n v i ol ati on of th e d ue pr oce ss cl au se of th e f our tee n th amendment to the Uni

ted States C onsti

tution
. BMW

of N orth A

merica, In c. v . Gore , 517 U.S. 559, 562, 134 L. Ed. 2d 809, 818, 116 S . Ct. 158 9, 1 592(19 96) . In rev i ew i ng the con sti tutiona l i ty of punit ivedam

age awards, we are to consider three gui deposts: (1) the

de gre e of repreh en si bi l i ty of t he defend ant 's mi

sconduct; (2) t he disp ar ity bet wee n t he ac t ual o r p ot ent ial harm suffer ed by t he pla int iff and the puni

tive da ma ges award; an

d (3) the dif

feren ce bet wee n t he pu nitive d amage s aw ar d and t he ci vi l pen al tie s au thori zed or i m posed i n c omp arab l e ca ses . Gore , 517 U.S. at 575, 134 L. Ed. 2d at 826, 116 S. Ct. at 1598-99 . The m ost im port ant of the three guidepo sts i s th e d egree of
r ep r eh en sib ilit y. Gore , 517 U.S. at 575, 134 L. Ed. 2d a t 826 , 1 16 S . C t . a t 159 9. Co ur t s de t er mine the degree of reprehensi

bi li ty by considerin

g whether the h

arm i mposed was

phy si cal , as opposed to economi c; the tor tious conduct evi nced an in dif feren ce to o r a reckl ess di sreg ar d o f the healt h and
saf ety of ot hers; the target o f the conduct had fi nan ci al vul nerabi li ty; the c onduct inv

olve drepeated act ions o rwa s a n iso lat ed inc ide nt ; a nd t he ha r m wa s t he r es ult o f int en t io na l m al ic e, trickery

, or de ce i t. Gore , 517 U.S . at 576- 77, 1 34 L. Ed. 2d at 827, 134 S. Ct. at 1599. We revi ew de novo t he constitutional

question of

whether a puni tive da ma ge award i s exces si

ve i n vi olation of due pro cess . International

Un i on of Op era ti ng Engi ne ers , Loc al

150 v. Low e Ex

ca va ti ng Co. , 225 Ill . 2d 456, 469 (2006 ).No. 2-- 06--0507

-23-

Applyingt he r epr ehens ibil ity fact or s in this c ase , t he harm was eco nomic, altho ugh d efenda nt 's conduct evinced a r eck less disr ega rd for plaint iff s' safet y. Plaint iff

s we re dec eived int o be lieving the 1997 Je ep wa s e qu ipp ed wit h t he Qu ad r a- T r ac sys t em, wh ich r eq uir ed no dr iv e r in put. Therefore, pla int iffs did n

ot reali ze thei r vul nerabi li ty i n i cy conditions, and they ex

perienced m

ish aps. There was
no evi dence pres en

ted of pl ai ntif f s'f i na nc i al vul nerab i l i ty. There w as

n o ev i den ce th at t his was anything but an i solated i nstance of

swi tchin g i ndi cat or plates, although B iondi ni ma de several misrepr ese nt at ions to pla

in tif fs . We f in d that t he h

arm was the res ul t of def endan t's d ece i t and tric kery and tha t, th ere f ore, i ts c ond uc t ca n b e d es cri

be d a s r ep reh

en si bl e. W e m ay make a f i nd i ng of reprehens i

bi l i ty u til izi ng on l y one of the f actors. Lowe , 225 Ill . 2d at 483. We n ow l

ook a t t he sec ond gu

i depos t, the dispa

ri ty b etween the ac tual

or potenti al

ha rm suf fered by plaintiffs and t he puni tive dam ages award. Wi

th regard to this

guide post, few a

wards
exce eding sin

gle-digit ratios will

pass constituti

onal m uster. St at e F ar m Mu t ua l Au t o mo bile Insuranc e Co. v. Ca mpb ell , 538 U.S. 408, 425, 155 L. Ed. 2d 585, 605- 06, 123 S. Ct. 1513, 1524 (2003)
. Howev er, rati os i

n the si ngl e di gi ts are n ot bi ndi ng, as the re i s n o bri ght-l i ne rule as to whether a punit ivedam

age a ward i s ex ces si ve . Ca mpb ell , 538 U.S. at 425, 155 L. Ed. 2d at 605, 123 S. Ct. at 1524. In o ur cas e, t he jur y awar ded st ipulat ed o ut -o f-po cke t damag es o f $8, 527 .9 7. The punit ive dam ages award was $88,168.50, roughly 10 t imes the amou nt of c omp ensa t or y damage s. D efenda nt urges t ha t t he r at io is " gr o ss ly" ex ce ss i v e a n d sh oul d b e r ed uc ed to no more t han quadruple dam ages. Low com pe ns atory da mag esaw ard s m

ay su ppor t hi gher rati os where a

particularly

egregious act has resul ted i n a sm al l am ount of economi c dam age or w here an i nj ury i s di f f i cul t to detect and

the h arm is dif f i cul t to determ

i ne . Lowe , 22 5 I ll. 2 d a t 48 7. Ou rsu pr eme cour t has ins tru cted us t hat the bestNo. 2-- 06--0507

-24-

way t o de t er mine w he t he ra g ive n r at io is a pp r o pr iat e is to co m pa rei t to pu nit ive da mag es aw ar ds in si m i l ar ca ses . Lowe , 225 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 487. Pla int iffs atte

m pt suc h a compari son of case s; h owever, the cases they

ci te are ina pposite. Pla int iffs ci

te Mathi as v. Accor Eco nomy Lodgin g, Inc. , 347 F .3d 672(7th C i r. 20 03 ) , wh ich up he ld
a pu n i ti ve damages a

wa r d o f $1 86 , 00 0 w he r e a ct ua l da mag es we r e o nly $ 5, 00 0. T ha t ca se is dis simi la r to ours, as it in

volv ed pl ai ntif fs bei ng bi tt en b y b edbugs an

d dam ages were diff

ic ul t t o qu ant ify beca us e t hey w er e la rg ely emo t io nal. Pla int iffs also re ly on Ek l v. Knec ht , 223 Ill . App. 3d 234 (1991 ), Ciam

pi v. O gden

Ch ry sler Pl y mouth, Inc. , 26 2 I ll . App. 3d 94 (1994), and To t z v. Con ti n en ta l Du Page A

cura , 23 6 I l l . A

pp . 3d 89 1 ( 19 92 ), f

or th e p rop osi ti on th at prop orti

on al i ty between actual damages and puni tive dam ages is n ot required. These cases are inapposite because they resolved the i ss ueof the propri ety of the am oun ts of puni tive da ma ges under the com

mon l aw and no t pu r su an t t o t he co nst it ut io na l pr inc iple s in Gore , Ca mpb ell , and Lowe . Moreov er, Totz was concerned

wit h an a m oun

t of att orney fees vis- a- vis act ual da mages , r at her t han wit h a pu nitive dam ages awar d. Our re sea rc h has d isclos ed a re cent cas e fro m the Arkans as Court o f A ppeal s wi th facts si mi la r to t hos e in ou r c ase . I n Jim R ay, I nc . v Willia ms , No. CA06--789 (June 27, 2007), Will ia ms purchased
a Ni ssa n pi ckuptruck f

rom J i m Ray. Williams , sl

i p op. at _ __. A f ter h e d rov e the truck

f rom th e l ot, Williams reali

zed the truck had about 3,000 mi le s on i t and the i

nvoi ce pric e wa s hi gh er

th an t he sticker price. Williams , sli

p op. at ___ . Willi

ams re t ur ned t he t ru ck a nd co nvinced J im Ray to set t he deal asi de. Williams , slip o p. at __ _. Williams then pi cked out an

othe r tru ck wi th a sti cker priceof $29,700. Williams , sl

i p op. at ___ . In

compl eting the paperwork, Wil

li am s noticed

the in voic e price
was $34,12 5.87. Williams , sli p op. at ___. When

Wi ll ia ms pointed out t he di screpancy to the fi nan ceNo. 2-- 06--0507

-25-

ma nager, the f

in ance m anager ass

uredWi ll iam s that t he hi

gher fi gure repr esented po in

ts o r credits, not dol l ars . Willi ams , sli

p op. at ___. Based on thi s representation, W il li am s si gned the i nvoice. Williams , slip op . a t ___ . Willi ams also pur chas ed a n ext ende d wa rr ant y that t he fina nc e ma na ge rt o ld him he was requi red to bu y . Williams , slip o p. at __ _. Williams lat er de t er mined he ha d a ct ua lly pa id $34,125.87 for the truck and, when he tried to cancel

the war ra nt y, Ji m R ay never responded. Williams , sli

p op. at ___. Wi

ll ia ms 's ex perts at t rial

t es t ified t ha t a ye ar - o ld p ick up is no t o r din ar ily
so ld abo ve the sticker price, t hat the req uirem ent that the cust omer purchase an ex ten de d w ar ra n ty
on a u se d v eh icle co nst it ut ed fr au d, an d t ha t t he en t ire de al w it h Jim R ay r es ult ed in a n u nc o nsc io na ble prof i t for th e dea

l er. Williams , slip op. at ___. Wil li am s was awarded $4,425.87 i n actual dam ages and $75,0 00 in

pun i tiv e dam ages . Williams , sli

p op. at ___. Undertakin g a de novo re view o f the
amou nt of the pun i ti ve da mag esaw ard , pu

rs ua nt to Gore , the A

rkansas Courto f Ap pe als re mitt ed t he punit iveda mag es t o $3 0, 00 0, wh ich r ep r es en t ed a s ing le- dig it r at io of se v en to one. Williams , slip op. at ___. The Williams co ur t re aso ned t hat Jim Ray's co nd uc t , ev en inc lud ing t he fac t t ha t t he de ale r ship
was a r ec idiv ist , wa s no t hig hly reprehens i

bl e. Williams , sli

p op. at ___. The court then observ ed that it had approved

rati os higher t han single d igits in ca ses o f ext re me emot ional dist re ss o r hu mil iatio n, a significant d ispar ity o f barg aining po wer , a nd a "n i gh tm ari sh " s i tua ti on i n v ol v i n g a n i m pr ope r a rre st. Williams , slip op. at _

__ . Ta ki n g i n to co n si dera ti on al l th re e g ui de posts s et f

orth in Gore , the c ourt determi ned that a puni

tive da ma ges award of n

o more than a si

ngle-digi t rat io was warran

ted. Williams , sli

p op. at ___. We fin d Williams i

n str uc ti v e. Here , de f

en da n t' s c on du ct w as

repr eh ensi b l e, b ut i t was no t hei nous or s h ock

i n g to t he co nsc ien ce . T he r e w as no ev ide nc e o f r ec idiv ism, and the transaction wasNo. 2-- 06--0507

-26-

at arm's l ength. We cannot say, based on the eviden ce, t hat plai

ntif fs were sophisticated business persons, al

though they h

ad prior experi

ence n egotiating a

veh ic le le ase. Ho we ve r , de fen da nt 's d ec eit and trickery did sh

ow a re ckless disregard for p lai ntif fs' safety, because

plaint iff s we re unaw ar e t he
ve hic le wou l d n

ot au tomati cal l y go i nto f our- whee l dri ve i n b ad road con di ti on s. Thus, we wo uld pla ce de f en da n t' s rep re h ensi

b i l i ty in the midd le to slightly abo ve the mi ddle range. Puni

tive da ma ges of m ore than f our to on e b ut les s th an doubl e di gi

ts a re a ppr opri ate . W e c onc l

ude tha t an aw ard of punit iveda mag es in

th e a moun t of $5 9,6 95 .79i s c on sti

tuti on al . Th i s a moun t re pr es en ts a s ev en to
one ra t io. Acco rd ingly, we mo dify the tria l court's j udgm en t, and we reman

d f or a re mitt itu r in t he punit iveda ma ges judgm

ent agai nst def endan t t o t he am

ount o f $59,695.79. See Turner v. Fi rstar Bank , 363 Ill . App. 3d 1150, 1166 (2006). The remi tt itur i s condi

tioned upon pla in tif fs ' consen t. On
reman d, the trial court shal

l s et a re as ona

bl e a moun t of ti me f orpla in tif fs ' consen t, and, if pla in tif fs do not c ons en

t, th en a n ew tri al on t he issue of t he amo unt of p unit ivedam ages i s prope r. Turner , 363 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 1166. The third gui

depost is not appli

ca bl e, because t her e ar e no civil penalties for defend ant 's
con du ct. E. Whet her t he T rial Co ur t Er re d When I t Denied Defend ant 's Mo t ion fo r Ju dgment Notwithstandi

ng the Verdi

ct Defend ant nex

t contends that t he trial

court erredwhen

it den i ed

de f en da nt' s m oti on f or judg ment notwithstandi

ng the verdict. Def

endan t reiterates its a rg ument that the j ury di d not aw ard actual dam ages on t he co mmon-law frau d co unt , a nd it re que st s t hat we va cat e t he findingof l i ab i l i ty f orcomm on-law fraud or that we reverse and rem and f or a newt r ial o n t he co mmo n- law fr au d c laim. "A mot ion fo r jud gment not wit hst anding t he ve r dic t sho uld be gr an t ed o nly when ' "al l of the evi dence,No. 2-- 06--0507

-27-

when viewed in the l

igh t most f av ora b l e to th e op pon en t, so overwhel

mi ngl y f avors the m

ovant that
no contrary verdi

ct based on that evidence could ever stand." ' [Citations.]" Pet re v. Cardi ovascular Con su l tan ts , 37 3 I ll. A

pp. 3d 9 29, 938 (20 07) . "W e re vi ew a tri al cou rt' s dec i si on to de ny a m oti on f orj udgm en t n otwi th sta n di n g th e v erdi ct de novo ." Petre , 373 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 938-39. This ar gument hasno mer it bec aus e we have determi ned defen dant wai ved the i ssue of wh

ether the jury

awarded actual dam ages f or f rau d. A cc ordi ngl y , th e tri al cou rt di d n ot err i n d en y i ng the m oti on f or judg ment
n otwi th sta n di n g th e v erdi ct. F. Wh ether the Trial

Court Erred When

It Denied De fen

dant's Motion f

or a New Trial Defend ant next contends that the trial court erred when

it deni ed defe ndan t's m ot ion f or a new t r ial. Defend ant in

corpo rates all

of i ts prior argumen

ts. "A m ot ion f or a new trial

should be granted wh eret he jur y'sverdict is agai nstthe mani

fest weigh t o f the evi

dence." Petre , 373 Ill . App. 3d at 939. "A v erdi ct is a gai n st the m an ifes t we igh t o f t he ev ide nc e w he r e t he o pp o sit e c o nc lus io n is c lea r ly evident o rwh er e t he find ing s o f t he ju ry are un re aso nable, ar bitr ar y, and not base d o n any of t he
evi den ce." Petre , 373 Ill . App . 3d at 9 39 . B ec au se

th e dec i si

on wh eth er to gran t a n ew trial re sts wi thi n th e tri al cou rt' s d i screti on, wewi l l not re v er se i ts rul i ng a bs en t an a bus e of di scre tion
. Petre , 373 Ill . App. 3d at 939. We have al ready de termi ned that the j ury' s verdi

ct in this case was not against t he manifest w eight of t he evide nce. Acco rd ingly, the t rial co ur t did no t er r in de nying defenda nt 's
m oti on for a new tri al

b y j ur y on th e c om mon -law f ra ud cou n t. Sim il arly , we have al ready de termi ned t hat t he t rial co ur t 's ver dict on t he co nsumer frau d co unt was not aga inst t he manifest weight of t he
evi den ce. Contrary to defendan t's asserti on that t he trial

cou rt cou l d n ot ha ve con cl ude d, b as ed

on t he evi dence, that

de fen da nt 's a ct s w er e in t en t io na l, the trial court could have reasona bl y di sbel ie vedNo. 2-- 06--0507

-28-

Biond ini and Guzzi

no and f ound pla in tif fs credible . Accordin

gly , the trial co ur t did not er r in de nying de f en da n t' s m oti on f or a n ew trial as to li ab i l i ty on th e c on su

mer f ra ud cou n t. G. Whethe

r the Trial Court Ab

used Its Dis cretion i

n A wardin g Atto rney

Fees La st ly, defen

dant contends that t he t ria l co ur t abu se d it s d iscr et io n in aw ar ding pla int iffs atto rney fees in the am ount o f $53 ,087.50 . D efenda nt 's first basis is t hat t he t rial co ur t 's judg ment agai nst def endan t on coun t V was i m proper. W

e hav e di spose d of

that i ssue i

n pl ai ntif f s'f avor. Defend ant 's sec ond basis i s that we have previ ously found, in ot her cas es, plaint iff s' co unse l's fee petitions wanti ng, and the f

ee pe t it io n in t his c as e fa ils t o d iff er ent iate bet wee n co mpensa ble and
no nc o mpe nsa ble t ime, fails t o pr o vid e e vid en ce t ha t co un se l's h o ur ly f eei s r ea son

ab l e i n l i gh t of t he servi ces pe r fo r med , fails t o p ro vide evide nce o f the mar ke t ra t e fo r D u P ag e C o unt y, fa ils t o ide nt ify t he tim ekeeper, fai

ls to in cl ude spe cific fact s, fa ils to sho w t ime act ually incurr ed, and contain s bl ock bi ll in g. De fen da nt r ec it es t his l i tan y wi thou t f urth er e l ab orati

on o rar gu men t o rcit at io n t o au t ho r it y. The only cas es d efenda nt cite s ar e ca ses w her e we sup po sed ly criticized plaint iff s' co unse l's bil

ling pract ices. Defend ant urges us to dis mi ss the i nstant f ee petiti on "out o f h

and" to teach counsel

to heed
our prior admonish

men ts in other, u nrelated, cases. At pag e 33 of its brief , defendant concludes, "The
o nly way that t hi s [c]ourt 's prev

ious adm onitions *** are to have any bi ndi ng ef fect i s i f pl

ai ntif fs ' f ee pe ti ti on is d ismisse d o ut o f han d. " As king t his c o ur t t o pu nish p laint iffs f ortheir attorney' s past alle ged t ra nsgr essio ns in

ot her cases

is me ritl ess. Def

endan t has cite d no aut hor ity t o a llow u s t o d o t hat , a nd
we declin e to do so. Moreo ver, we determi ne thatdefend ant has w aived t he ar gument re lating t o t he suf fi ci ency of t he fee pe t it io n in t his c as e b y failing t o co mply with Suprem

e Court Rule 341(h)(7) (210 I ll. 2d R. 3 41(h

)(7)). Defe

ndan t has l umpe d its concl

usi ons aboutthe percei

ved def ic ie nci es i n the f ee pe ti ti on int o o ne s ent enc e in it s br ief, wit hou t sup po rt ing t hem with leg al arg ument or ap pro priate caseNo. 2-- 06--0507

-29-

citations. "No amou nt of st ead fast ness r elieves a p ar t y of its obligat ion t o a bide by thi s rule in pr ese nt ing

its arguments on appeal." No va ko vic v. Sa mut in , 3 54 I ll. Ap p. 3d 66 0, 667 ( 2004)
. Further, we note that defendan t has f i l ed an i nc omp l ete rec ord. Thi s liti gation com

me nced i n 1998. The record defendan

t subm itted on appeal

is mi ssi ng the f irst three y

ears. Accordin

gly , we hold that the tri al court did not ab

use i ts di scre tion i n a wardi ng p l ai ntif f s $53 ,087.50

i n a ttorney f ees . CONCLUSION For the forego in

g reasons, the judgm

ent of the ci

rcuit court o f Du Page C ounty i s af fi rmed as modifi ed by the r emitt itu r o f punit ive damag es, and t he ca us e is rem an de d to th e tr i al cou rt w i th instr uct ions to set a re as ona bl e d atef orplaint iff

s' co nsent to the

rem i tti tur a nd to gra nt a ne w tri al on t he i ssue of puni

tive dam ages should pl ain

tiff s not co nsent to the remittitur. T he court is al so in structed t o reduce plai

ntif fs ' actual dam ages to a t ot al

of $8,527.97. Af fi rmed as modifi ed; cause reman ded. HUTCHINSON and GROM ETER, JJ ., conc

ur.