Court Opinion

ID: 9716087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:26:13.989964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:41.490394
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE WOLFSON, dissenting: I believe the record supports the trial court’s decision that this action is barred by the release of June 26, 2002. True, a release will not be construed to defeat a valid claim that was not within the contemplation of the parties at the time it was executed. Carona v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R. Co., 203 Ill. App. 3d 947, 951 (1990). But in order to determine what the parties contemplated, courts are not prevented from inquiring into “surrounding circumstances.” Carlile v. Snap-On Tools, 271 Ill. App. 3d 833 (1995). Here, the purpose of the litigation was to end the trust and distribute its assets. In 1993 the beneficiaries knew about the existence of the Civic Center mortgage and they knew the mortgage secured performance under the guarantee. They knew the guarantee covered payment of the additional ground and percentage rents in accord with the 1972 lease amendments. And they knew Prudential had accepted an assignment in lieu of foreclosure on the leasehold mortgages. I would find labels placed on the beneficiaries’ claims do not erase the reality that the additional ground and percentage rents were property of the trust and therefore are covered by the release. The beneficiaries might not have had possession of the original guarantee, but they knew enough about its terms to conclude something should have been done about collection of the rents. I respectfully dissent.