Opinion ID: 2070687
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Adversaries

Text: The next day, plaintiffs brought this lawsuit. In July and November 1995, the Roosevelt University board of trustees approved resolutions that: (1) dissolved the Council; (2) withdrew any and all powers given to ATC Inc.; and (3) authorized a new not-for-profit corporation to manage and operate the Theatre, known as the Auditorium Theatre of Roosevelt University (AT of RU). In their complaint, plaintiffs sought an injunction prohibiting defendants and ATC Inc. from directing the transfer of any money from ATC Inc. to Roosevelt for non-Theatre purposes. Also, plaintiffs sought a declaration that Roosevelt had placed the Theatre in the public domain for the benefit of the people of Chicagoland, with the Council and its successor, ATC Inc., as trustee. Plaintiffs also sought a declaration that, inter alia : ATC Inc. had legal title to all funds donated and all revenue generated from its operations; any transfer of money from ATC Inc. to Roosevelt for non-Theatre purposes would violate the articles of incorporation and bylaws of ATC Inc.; and such transfer would violate the General Not For Profit Corporation Act of 1986 (805 ILCS 105/101.01 et seq. (West 2000)). Roosevelt filed an answer, in which the University raised defenses. Roosevelt claimed that ATC Inc.'s sole corporate purpose was to raise funds for the Theatre and that the board of trustees of the University, the owner of the building, had never granted ATC Inc. authority or power to restore, maintain, or operate the Theatre. Roosevelt also claimed that ATC Inc. did not succeed the Council created in 1960. Among its defenses, Roosevelt claimed: there is absolutely no legal doctrine involving the dedication of private property to the `public domain,' at least without a governmental taking through a condemnation proceeding with just compensation. Roosevelt also filed a counterclaim against plaintiffs and ATC Inc. for declaratory and injunctive relief. Roosevelt sought a declaration that the University owns all right, title, and interest in the Theatre. Roosevelt sought a further declaration that: the University has the sole power and authority to restore, maintain, and operate the Theatre; that the University granted a revocable license to the Council to perform those tasks; and that ATC Inc. has no right to perform those tasks, but was created solely for fund raising purposes. Roosevelt also sought, inter alia, an accounting of ATC Inc.'s funds and an injunction to prevent ATC Inc. from operating the Theatre. ATC Inc. filed its own counterclaim against Roosevelt. The corporation asserted a number of alternative legal theories in support of its claimed control of the Theatre. The trial court granted Gross' motion to dismiss all claims against him as legally insufficient (see 735 ILCS 5/2-615(a) (West 2000)). Also, granting Roosevelt's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings (see 735 ILCS 5/2-615(e) (West 2000)), the trial court held that: (1) Roosevelt had the authority and right to restore, maintain, and operate the Theatre; (2) ATC Inc.'s sole right is to raise money for the Theatre; and (3) the positive net operating revenues from Theatre performances are the property of the University. In a Rule 23 order, the appellate court reversed the orders of the circuit court and remanded the cause for a trial. Eychaner v. Gross, Nos. 1-95-3614, 1-96-1412 cons., 286 Ill.App.3d 1110, 237 Ill.Dec. 536, 709 N.E.2d 1005 (1997) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). The appellate court determined that disputed questions of material fact existed regarding the parties' relationship. The appellate court also held that plaintiffs' claims were legally sufficient. On remand, plaintiffs and ATC Inc. (hereafter referred to as plaintiffs) amended their pleadings. They, inter alia, altered their trust theory to assert an express trust of the right to restore, maintain, and operate the Theatre, which they referred to as the Auditorium Theatre Trust. Plaintiffs maintained their allegations that the Council was the trustee and ATC Inc., as legal successor to the Council, became, and remains, the trustee. In its counterclaim against Roosevelt and Gross, ATC Inc. alleged, inter alia : (1) an express charitable public trust; (2) constructive trust; (3) breach of contract based on the 1960 resolution and SOPs; (4) equitable estoppel; and (5) promissory estoppel. At the close of a bench trial, on September 28, 1998, the court entered judgment in favor of Roosevelt on its counterclaim and denied plaintiffs' theories of relief. The trial court declared the University to be the sole and exclusive owner of the Theatre. The trial court: ordered plaintiffs to turn over control of the Theatre to the newly formed AT of RU; barred the Council and ATC Inc. from operating and controlling the Theatre; and ordered an immediate accounting of Theatre operations. On September 29, the trial court made an express written finding making these orders immediately enforceable (see 155 Ill.2d R. 304(a)). A divided appellate court reversed these orders and remanded the cause for further proceedings. 321 Ill.App.3d 759, 254 Ill. Dec. 557, 747 N.E.2d 969. The appellate court held that the trial court's conclusion that there was no express trust was clearly erroneous. 321 Ill.App.3d at 779, 254 Ill. Dec. 557, 747 N.E.2d 969. Based on that holding, the court declined to address plaintiffs' alternative claims. 321 Ill. App.3d at 780-81, 254 Ill.Dec. 557, 747 N.E.2d 969. A concurring justice wrote separately to disagree with the dissent. 321 Ill.App.3d at 785, 254 Ill.Dec. 557, 747 N.E.2d 969 (Cahill, P.J., specially concurring). The dissenting justice concluded: Because there is enough admissible evidence to support the trial judge's view that this was a takeover attempt by an instrumentality of Roosevelt University, I would affirm his conclusion that there is no trust. 321 Ill.App.3d at 788, 254 Ill.Dec. 557, 747 N.E.2d 969 (Wolfson, J., dissenting). We allowed defendants' petition for leave to appeal. [1] We subsequently granted leave to DePaul University and the Illinois Institute of Technology to file an amicus curiae brief in support of defendants' appeal. We also granted leave to the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois to file an amicus curiae brief in support of plaintiffs.