Opinion ID: 2439739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Remand

Text: ¶ 45 Before this court, Reliable reasons: If the circuit court applied the wrong legal standard to the facts of the case, then remand is the proper remedy to give the court an opportunity to apply the correct test. The circuit court ruled that the noncompetition restrictive covenant was unenforceable. The appellate court special concurrence agreed with the lead opinion that the circuit court ruling should be upheld, but based on the totality of the circumstances presented in the record. 405 Ill.App.3d at 752, 346 Ill.Dec. 153, 940 N.E.2d 153 (Hudson, J., specially concurring). While the dissent agreed with the special concurrence's view of the promisee's legitimate business interest, he would have reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Id. at 759, 346 Ill.Dec. 153, 940 N.E.2d 153 (O'Malley, J., dissenting). ¶ 46 When a case is tried under an incorrect theory of law the appropriate action is to reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial. Sparling v. Peabody Coal Co., 59 Ill.2d 491, 496, 322 N.E.2d 5 (1974). In the present case, the parties presented their evidence and fashioned their arguments based on the appellate court's rigid and preclusive legitimate business interest test. The circuit court conscientiously applied this test in ruling that the noncompetition restrictive covenant was unenforceable. Particularly where, as here, the ultimate issue  the reasonableness of the agreements  turns upon the totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding them, the parties must be given a full opportunity to develop the necessary evidentiary record. Rollins Burdick Hunter of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Hamilton, 101 Wis.2d 460, 304 N.W.2d 752, 757 (1981). We observe that the circuit need not conduct an entirely new evidentiary hearing, but rather may allow the parties to supplement the existing record with any additional evidence and argument pertaining to the totality of the circumstances.