Court Opinion

ID: 9712871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:01:51.895395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:14.938434
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOPKINS, dissenting: In concluding “that promissory estoppel may be used as a defense but not as a cause of action” (357 Ill. App. 3d at 573), the majority relies upon ESM Development Corp. v. Dawson, 342 Ill. App. 3d 688, 695 (2003), in which this court stated that promissory estoppel “is not a proper vehicle for direct relief,” “cannot properly be pled as a cause of action,” “is meant to be utilized as a defensive mechanism — not as a means of attack,” and “does not form the basis for a damages claim.” Because I firmly believe that those statements in ESM Development Corp. were not accurate statements of Illinois law when they were made, are not accurate statements of Illinois law now, and are contrary to the Illinois Supreme Court’s opinion in Quake Construction, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc., 141 Ill. 2d 281 (1990), and because I firmly believe that the majority’s holding in this case is contrary to the supreme court’s opinion in Quake Construction, Inc., I respectfully dissent. It is interesting to note that in support of those statements in ESM Development Corp., which was decided less than two years ago, the court cited only D. Dobbs, Remedies § 2.3, at 41-42 (6th ed. 1984). ESM Development Corp., 342 Ill. App. 3d at 693. That hornbook, which is not a restatement of Illinois law, was almost 20 years old when the court relied upon it in ESM Development Corp. Moreover, the court in ESM Development Corp. did not cite any Illinois cases in support of those statements and did not mention the supreme court’s opinions in Doyle v. Holy Cross Hospital, 186 Ill. 2d 104 (1999), and Quake Construction, Inc., 141 Ill. 2d 281, which were directly on point. In Doyle, Chief Justice Freeman set out the following overview of promissory estoppel: “Generally, courts have used the doctrine of promissory estoppel in order to enforce promises when consideration is lacking, such as in cases involving gratuitous promises, charitable subscriptions, and certain intrafamily promises. [Citation.] However, in recent years, courts have expanded the use of the doctrine to enforce promises underlying otherwise defective contracts and promises made during the course of preliminary negotiations. In some instances, the doctrine has been employed to provide a remedy for reliance upon offers subsequently withdrawn. [Citation.] But, in all instances, application of promissory estoppel is appropriate only in the absence of an express agreement. The doctrine serves to impute contractual stature based upon an underlying promise and to provide a remedy to the party who detrimentally relies on the promise. [Citation.] In Illinois, to establish a claim based on promissory estoppel, a plaintiff must allege and prove that (i) defendant made an unambiguous promise to plaintiff, (ii) plaintiff relied on such promise, (iii) plaintiffs reliance was expected and foreseeable by defendant, and (iv) plaintiff relied on the promise to its detriment. Quake Construction, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc., 141 Ill. 2d 281, 309-10 (1990).” Doyle, 186 Ill. 2d at 119-20 (Freeman, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by McMorrow, J.). In Quake Construction, Inc., the plaintiff filed a four-count complaint against the defendants and sought damages based upon, inter alia, promissory estoppel. Quake Construction, Inc., 141 Ill. 2d at 284-85. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, pursuant to section 2 — 615 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2 — 615). Quake Construction, Inc., 141 Ill. 2d at 285. The appellate court reversed the dismissal, finding that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the elements of promissory estoppel. Quake Construction, Inc., 141 Ill. 2d at 285, 310. The supreme court began its analysis of the plaintiffs promissory estoppel claim as follows: “Plaintiff based count II on detrimental reliance, or in other words, promissory estoppel. To establish a claim based on promissory estoppel, plaintiff must allege and prove that (1) defendants made an unambiguous promise to plaintiff, (2) plaintiff relied on such promise, (3) plaintiffs reliance was expected and foreseeable by defendants, and (4) plaintiff relied on the promise to its detriment. [Citations.] Plaintiffs reliance must be reasonable and justifiable. [Citations.] Plaintiff may recover on a theory of promissory estoppel despite the absence of a contract. [Citations.]” Quake Construction, Inc., 141 Ill. 2d at 309-10. The supreme court then noted that, in support of the promissory estoppel claim, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants, both orally and through a letter of intent, had notified the plaintiff that the defendants had awarded a construction contract to the plaintiff; that, upon the defendants’ demand, the plaintiff had expanded its office space, hired a project manager, secured subcontractors for the project, provided the subcontractors’ license numbers to the defendants, and prepared to perform the work required for the project; and that the defendants knew that the plaintiff had incurred great time and expense in performing these tasks. Quake Construction, Inc., 141 Ill. 2d at 310-11. After reviewing these allegations, the supreme court agreed with the appellate court that the allegations were sufficient to allege a cause of action for damages based on promissory estoppel. Quake Construction, Inc., 141 Ill. 2d at 310-11. Accordingly, the supreme court allowed the promissory estoppel claim to proceed. Quake Construction, Inc., 141 Ill. 2d at 312. The majority states that it is not convinced that the supreme court’s opinion in Quake Construction, Inc. directly contradicts this court’s holding in ESM Development Corp. I strongly disagree. In ESM Development Corp., 342 Ill. App. 3d at 695, this court stated that promissory estoppel “is not a proper vehicle for direct relief,” “cannot properly be pled as a cause of action,” “is meant to be utilized as a defensive mechanism — not as a means of attack,” and “does not form the basis for a damages claim.” In Quake Construction, Inc., 141 Ill. 2d at 310-12, the supreme court held to the contrary. The plaintiff’s promissory estoppel claim in Quake Construction, Inc., which the supreme court found stated a cause of action for promissory estoppel and which the supreme court allowed to proceed, sought direct relief, was pled as an affirmative cause of action, and sought damages. Quake Construction, Inc., 141 Ill. 2d at 309-12. In addition, there are numerous Illinois Appellate Court opinions holding that a plaintiff can state an affirmative cause of action for damages based on promissory estoppel. E.g., Skyline International Development v. Citibank, F.S.B., 302 Ill. App. 3d 79, 84 (1st Dist. 1998) (holding that the trial court properly granted a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on its claim for damages based on promissory estoppel); Jeffrey M. Goldberg & Associates, Ltd. v. Collins Tuttle & Co., 264 Ill. App. 3d 878, 883-84 (1st Dist. 1994) (holding that the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim for damages based on promissory estoppel); Vajda v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 253 Ill. App. 3d 345, 356 (1st Dist. 1993) (holding that the trial court’s entry of a summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the plaintiffs claim for damages based on promissory estoppel was improper because a fact finder could have found sufficient evidence to support a promissory estoppel claim); Derby Meadows Utility Co. v. Inter-Continental Real Estate, 202 Ill. App. 3d 345, 361 (1st Dist. 1990) (holding that the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s promissory estoppel claim because the plaintiffs allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action for promissory estoppel); First National Bank of Cicero v. Sylvester, 196 Ill. App. 3d 902, 911-12 (1st Dist. 1990) (holding that the trial court improperly granted a summary judgment in favor of the counterdefendant on the counterplaintiffs claim for damages based on promissory estoppel because there were genuine issues of material fact); Gold v. Dubish, 193 Ill. App. 3d 339, 345-47 (5th Dist. 1989) (holding that the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims for damages based on promissory estoppel because the allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action based on promissory estoppel); Vincent DiVito, Inc. v. Vollmar Clay Products Co., 179 Ill. App. 3d 325, 327-29 (1st Dist. 1989) (holding that the trial court erred in granting a summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the plaintiffs claim for damages based on promissory estoppel because there was a genuine issue of material fact); Cullen Distributing, Inc. v. Petty, 164 Ill. App. 3d 313, 318 (4th Dist. 1987) (holding that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the trial court’s determination that the defendant was liable for damages under a theory of promissory estoppel); Hux v. Woodcock, 130 Ill. App. 3d 721 (5th Dist. 1985) (holding that the plaintiff stated a cause of action for damages based on promissory estoppel). Based upon the supreme court’s opinions in Doyle, 186 Ill. 2d 104, and Quake Construction, Inc., 141 Ill. 2d 281, and numerous Illinois Appellate Court opinions, including those cited above, I firmly believe that the statements this court made in ESM Development Corp. were not accurate statements of Illinois law when they were made, are not accurate statements of Illinois law now, and should be disavowed. I also firmly believe that the majority’s holding today is contrary to the supreme court’s opinion in Quake Construction, Inc. and numerous Illinois Appellate Court opinions, each of which allowed the plaintiff to proceed in an affirmative cause of action for damages based on promissory estoppel. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the circuit court.