Court Opinion

ID: 9543328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:44:24.843997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:09.391415
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE DUNN, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. In my judgment the cases cited by the majority do not support the conclusions they have reached. Only by a process of convoluted legal reasoning may it be concluded that plaintiff Grisanzio is barred in this case by the doctrines of election of remedies and res judicata as held by the majority. In the first suit, the dispute giving rise to the cause of action was resolved in favor of the plaintiff, Domenic Grisanzio, and against First Edition, Inc. Grisanzio, apparently unable to collect his judgment against the corporation, commenced this action against defendants John and Elayne Bilka, asserting liability on their part by virtue of section 3.20 of the Business Corporation Act of 1983 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 32, par. 3.20). John and Elayne Bilka, officers and sole shareholders of First Edition, Inc., signed the preincorporation contract which is the subject matter of both suits. Nothing in the law, or in the cases cited by the majority, required Grisanzio to join John and Elayne Bilka as defendants in his initial suit against the corporation. He was required to elect his remedies against the corporation (Builders Plumbing Supply Co. v. Zambetta (1986), 143 Ill. App. 3d 188, 190), but that rule of law does not preclude him from now seeking recovery from others who may also have exposure to liability on the contract. On the issue of res judicata, the majority cites C.I.S., Inc. v. Kann (1979), 76 Ill. App. 3d 109, in support of the conclusion that the identity-of-parties criterion is satisfied in this case. Kann does support the modern view that the identity-of-parties criterion is satisfied so long as the party against whom collateral estoppel is sought to be invoked is identical in both actions. (76 Ill. App. 3d 109, 111). Collateral estoppel, however, is being invoked by the majority in the instant case against plaintiff Grisanzio, who prevailed in the first action. This is manifestly unjust and contrary to existing law. Grisanzio should be permitted to proceed in this case, and the doctrine of collateral estoppel invoked, if at all, in his favor and against John and Elayne Bilka, who are the officers and sole shareholders of the defaulted corporation. The misapplication by the majority of the doctrines of election of remedies, res judicata and collateral estoppel is resulting in an injustice. I would reverse the trial court and remand for further proceedings.