Court Opinion

ID: 9730171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:03:30.53495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:04.488393
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HEIPLE, dissenting: In January 1977, the Whitlock children approached the Farm Credit Bank of St. Louis (Bank) to finance the purchase of additional land for their farming operation. The Bank initially refused the loan due to insufficient credit worthiness but eventually agreed to the loan on condition that the parents would offer their own farm as collateral. The cash necessary to complete the purchase was advanced on two separate notes. Note #1 was secured by the equity in the parents’ farm. Note #2 was secured by the equity in the children’s farm. The children subsequently defaulted and, to avoid foreclosure, negotiated a deed of their land to the Bank in lieu of foreclosure. This settlement included the execution of a mutual release of liability between the Whitlocks and the Bank. The release provides, in pertinent part: “5. As a part of the consideration of this agreement, Borrower *** does hereby remise, release and forever discharge The Federal Land Bank of St. Louis, the Federal Land Bank Association of Carrollton-Carlinville, Illinois, and the officers, employees, directors and stockholders thereof, and Bank, for itself and its successors and assigns, does hereby remise, release and forever discharge Borrower *** from all manner of actions, causes and causes of action, suits, debts, sums of money, accounts, reckonings, bonds, bills, trespasses, damages, judgments, executions, claims and demands, whatsoever, at law or in equity, and particularly without limiting the generality of the foregoing all claims relating to the mortgage loan transaction aforesaid and the conveyance of title hereunder, which either party and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors, assigns and agents ever had, now have or may have in the future, for, upon or by reason of any matter, cause or thing, whatsoever.” In January 1987, the Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings against the parents’ farm. Defendants moved for summary judgment, citing the release as a bar. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the two loan agreements constituted one single transaction and that the release was a general release encompassing the liability of the Whitlock children on the entire purchase price of the new land. The appellate court affirmed. The majority opinion reverses, finding that factual issues concerning the extent of the release remain, making summary judgment inappropriate. The trial and appellate court rulings were correct. The majority opinion of this court is wrong. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. The loan and release agreements are contracts and, as the majority correctly concedes, governed by contract law. Contracts are properly interpreted by examination of the instruments themselves. The intentions of the parties to a contract must be determined from the instrument itself, barring ambiguity. (Sutton Place Development Co. v. Bank of Commerce & Industry (1986), 149 Ill. App. 3d 513.) The majority, in order to justify reversal, concludes that the release agreement is ambiguous and, therefore, parol evidence is admissible to determine what the parties intended upon its execution. However, in reviewing the language of the release, the majority states that “section 5 states that the Bank releases the borrowers from all actions and claims, but particularly those relating to Loan #2.” (Emphasis in original.) (144 Ill. 2d at 448.) This statement, which is offered by the majority to support its ruling, in fact proves the opposite. The release in this case is clear, complete and unambiguous. The trial court, in considering the motion for summary judgment, had before it all of the relevant documents in the case. The release being clear on its face, there is no occasion to consider parol evidence. Summary judgment is properly rendered when the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2 — 1005(c). Accordingly, I dissent.