Opinion ID: 526780
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Voluntary Participation in Litigation

Text: 14 At the crux of the first issue is the meaning of Horn's promise not to voluntarily participate in any litigation against Frank Yockey. Horn contends that this language does not encompass her giving of the evidence deposition against Yockey in the Schrock litigation; Yockey alleges that it does. 15 We note initially that our standard of review on this issue is de novo, for construction of the terms of a contract ordinarily presents an issue of law for the court. Morris v. Flores, 174 Ill.App.3d 504, 506, 124 Ill.Dec. 122, 124, 528 N.E.2d 1013, 1015 (2d Dist.1988). 6 The district court determined that Horn's unsubpoenaed testimony, given in the evidence deposition and offered at the Schrock trial against Yockey, constituted voluntary participation in litigation against Yockey within the plain meaning of those words as used in the settlement agreement. We agree. Although the phrase is not a term of art in the law, the plain meaning of its component words provide guidance to its interpretation. Black's Law Dictionary 841 (5th ed. 1979) defines litigation as a [l]egal action, including all proceedings therein. (Emphasis added.) To participate is to take part; join or share with others. The American Heritage Dictionary 905 (2d ed. 1982). To do so voluntarily means to do so from one's own free will. Id. at 1355. Putting these three terms together yields a very broad concept: to voluntarily participate in any litigation means to willingly and freely take part in any legal proceeding. This language is quite broad, but it is what the parties negotiated at the time of settlement; they included no qualifiers except that the litigation be against Frank Yockey. There is no question that Schrock's civil suit for damages was against Yockey. It is not for us to rewrite the language of the settlement agreement. 16 Given the breadth of the language used, it is clear that Horn's giving of the evidence deposition in the Schrock litigation against Yockey was a violation of the settlement agreement. Furthermore, Horn admitted in the stipulated facts submitted to the district court that she sat for the evidence deposition in the Schrock litigation of her own free will. She was under no legal compulsion, nor are there any insinuations of physical or mental duress. Admittedly, she did not instigate the giving of the evidence deposition, and thus she is not a volunteer in this narrower sense. Her ongoing relationship with the law firm of Harlan Heller, Ltd. and the fact that it was at the request of Brent Holmes, a member of the Heller firm, that she gave her testimony does not, however, alter or diminish the voluntary character of her actions, as that word is broadly defined. True, Horn received questionable advice and guidance from her attorneys when they requested that she sit for the deposition without obtaining a subpoena, but that does not change the voluntary nature of her actions, nor does it relieve her of the obligations imposed upon her under the settlement agreement. 17 Horn further admitted that she understood the significance of an evidence deposition--that it is the same as testimony given in open court. Whatever else participate in litigation against Frank Yockey might mean, it encompasses testifying, in a case instituted by a former investor in the Yockey-Horn partnership, against Yockey for actions arising generally out of the same set of circumstances that led to the settlement between Horn and Yockey. Perhaps the language used would not stretch so far as to reach all imaginable situations. For example, if Horn had been subpoenaed and Yockey sued her for failing to contest the Illinois court's jurisdiction over her before sitting for the evidence deposition, or if the evidence deposition, although taken without a subpoena, was never introduced into evidence at the Schrock trial, we might reach a different result. In the present circumstances, however, there could not be a clearer case of voluntary participation in litigation. We therefore hold that Horn did voluntarily participate in litigation against Yockey in violation of their settlement agreement.