Court Opinion

ID: 9716145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:28:18.605242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:42.264502
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McNAMARA, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that an enforceable contract exists. I would affirm the holding of the trial court that the contract lacks an essential term with regard to the cross-easements. Any possible obligation to establish easements stems first from paragraph 10 of the contract and then from the relevant municipal action. The majority focuses almost exclusively on the municipal action which required that “appropriate easements” be established prior to recording the deed. The majority views paragraph 10 as language which merely “underscores the plaintiff’s entitlement to the easements.” Neither this reasoning nor the municipal action addresses defendants’ right to a cross-easement under paragraph 10 of the contract. I believe that the validity of the contract must be analyzed first in light of paragraph 10, before analyzing any obligations imposed by the municipal recording requirements. If the contract is unenforceable due to the absence of a material term, it is irrelevant what duties arise under the municipal ordinance. Requirements imposed by the village should not function as new contractual obligations which correct material defects in the contract. A municipality does not have the power to convert a defective contract into an enforceable contract simply by imposing recording requirements. Thus, I find that the basis of the majority’s analysis, i.e., defendants’ contractual obligation to deliver a “recordable trustees deed,” fails to answer the underlying question of whether an enforceable contract exists. Whether or not an enforceable contract exists is dependent upon the intent of the parties, as evidenced by the language of the document. (Interway, Inc. v. Alagna (1980), 85 Ill. App. 3d 1094, 407 N.E.2d 615.) The determination of this issue may be a question of law or a question of fact. (Terracom Development Group, Inc. v. Coleman Cable & Wire Co. (1977), 50 Ill. App. 3d 739, 365 N.E.2d 1028.) If the terms of the alleged contract are unambiguous, then the intent of the parties must be ascertained solely from the words used and is a question of law. (Lenzi v. Morkin (1984), 103 Ill. 2d 290, 469 N.E.2d 178; Interway, Inc. v. Alagna (1980), 85 Ill. App. 3d 1094, 407 N.E.2d 615.) If the language is ambiguous, however, extrinsic evidence is admissible to determine the parties’ intent and the interpretation of the language is a question of fact. (Chicago Principals Association v. Board of Education (1980), 84 Ill. App. 3d 1095, 406 N.E.2d 82.) Where the material terms are indefinite and ambiguous, the contract is unenforceable. (Morey v. Hoffman (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 125, 145 N.E.2d 644; Stender v. National Boulevard Bank (1983), 114 Ill. App. 3d 1041, 499 N.E.2d 873.) Moreover, any ambiguity in the language of the contract should be resolved against the drafter of the document. (Howard A. Koop & Associates v. KPK Corp. (1983), 119 Ill. App. 3d 391, 457 N.E.2d 66.) In determining the existence of a contract where extrinsic evidence is admitted, the findings of fact of the trial court will be upheld unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Chicago Investment Corp. v. Dolins (1985), 107 Ill. 2d 120, 481 N.E.2d 712. Furthermore, a judgment requiring defendant to deliver a recordable deed to plaintiff is the relief awarded in a specific performance action. (See National Super Markets, Inc. v. First National Bank (1979), 72 Ill. App. 3d 221, 390 N.E.2d 602.) In the present case, the trial court properly concluded that plaintiff did not seek a declaration of rights, but instead sought specific performance. (See Berk v. County of Will (1966), 34 Ill. 2d 588, 218 N.E.2d 98; Aebischer v. Zobrist (1977), 56 Ill. App. 3d 151, 371 N.E.2d 1003.) The burden of proving the existence of a contract to be specifically performed is upon the party seeking to enforce the contract. (Fox v. Lawson (1979), 76 Ill. App. 3d 806, 395 N.E.2d 588.) Specific performance is an appropriate remedy only where a contract is definite, certain, and unequivocal in its terms (National Super Markets, Inc. v. First National Bank (1979), 72 Ill. App. 3d 221, 390 N.E.2d 602), so that the court may determine with some exactness what act defendant must perform (Stender v. National Boulevard Bank (1983), 114 Ill. App. 3d 1041, 499 N.E.2d 843). In reviewing a denial of specific performance, a trial court’s decision will not be disturbed, absent an abuse of discretion. Foster Enterprises, Inc. v. Germania Federal Savings & Loan Association (1981), 97 Ill. App. 3d 22, 421 N.E.2d 1375. Here, paragraph 10 of the contract states that, at “the closing, the parties will execute and deliver to each other recordable cross easements *** in order to unify the plan for parking and ingress and egress *** and to obtain the maximum lawful number of parking spaces.” Where the parties to an agreement indicate an intention to leave an essential term for future negotiations, there is no binding contract. (Morey v. Hoffman (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 125, 145 N.E.2d 644; Hintz v. Lazarus (1978), 58 Ill. App. 3d 64, 373 N.E.2d 1018.) Such a contract is too indefinite and thus unenforceable. (Morey v. Hoffman (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 125, 145 N.E.2d 644; Stender v. National Boulevard Bank (1983), 114 Ill. App. 3d 1041, 499 N.E.2d 873.) Under paragraph 10 of the contract at issue, the parties failed to state the location of the cross-easements, leaving that for a future agreement which would occur after the signing of the contract and prior to closing. The term is essential because, without it, plaintiff had no access to the remainder of parcel A or to parcel B from both Lake-Cook and Waukegan Roads and defendants had no additional parking for their restaurant patrons on the land being sold. The absence of the term defeats an important purpose underlying the contract for the sale of real estate. Because the location of the easements was essential to the proposed contract and the parties indicated their intent to leave it for future negotiations, as a matter of law the failure to agree on this term precluded the formation of a contract. However, even if it were determined that paragraph 10 was ambiguous and did not sufficiently state the parties’ intent, the extrinsic evidence presented supports the trial court’s factual finding that there was no agreement between the parties. Plaintiff’s own attorney, Nathaniel Sack, who drafted the document, testified that cross-easements could not be granted when the proposed contract was signed because the plan to which paragraph 10 referred did not exist. In fact, the unified plan for additional parking, ingress and egress, never came into being and the commercial zoning was never obtained. Sack also testified that paragraph 10 was an “agreement to agree,” and before the contract could be “consummated,” the parties had to enter into a subsequent written agreement granting cross-easements. In addition, defendant Arthur Johnson testified that in his opinion the parties had a contract but the parties had to figure out the easements to allocate shares of parking spaces. Furthermore, in July 1981, defendants submitted an exhibit with their petition for rezoning to the planning commission for the village of Deerfield entitled “Proposed Johnson Property Cross Easements.” This exhibit stated that it was “an outline of the proposed terms of cross easements to be granted.” The parties never finalized this contract term. The majority states that it would not find the contract void because: “Such a result would be unduly harsh here, where plaintiff is willing to accept any location selected by defendants.” This reasoning ignores the fact that the contract involves cross-easements, not merely one easement granted by defendants for the benefit of plaintiff. The contract provided for cross-easements which would unify the planned development for both maximum parking space and for ingress and egress. Both purposes are specified in paragraph 10, and plaintiff’s willingness to accept “any” easement now indicates a change of intent and a failure to give effect to the cross-easement which was to benefit defendants. In construing a document, the intention of the parties at the time they executed the document is controlling. (Chemical Petroleum Exchange, Inc. v. Metropolitan Sanitary District (1980), 81 Ill. App. 3d 1005, 401 N.E.2d 1203.) At the time the contract was executed, plaintiff did not manifest an intention to accept “any” easement offered by defendants. The majority also holds that a court can ascertain and fix the exact location of an easement, and thus the contract need not be considered void. While a court may ascertain the location of an easement in certain situations, the present case is not included. Cases where a court fixes the location of an easement typically involve a grant of a right-of-way which provides for a designation of location in the future by only one party. (See generally Annot., 24 A.L.R.4th 1053, sec. 7 (1983).) Here, the language provided for a designation of location in the future by both parties with regard to both cross-easements. Moreover, there was no evidence presented concerning the location of cross-easements which would unify the plan for both maximum parking space and for ingress and egress. Thus a court could have great difficulty determining where the parties intended the easements to be located. The majority’s reliance on the holdings in Vallas v. Johnson (1979), 72 Ill. App. 3d 281, 390 N.E.2d 939, and Shedd v. American Maize Products Co. (1915), 60 Ind. App. 146, 108 N.E.2d 610, is misplaced. In Valias there was no dispute about whether the deeds at issue granted an easement. Unlike the present case, the Valias court merely had to determine, by considering the parties’ actual usage, the width of an easement which all parties agreed had been granted. Shedd did not involve a contract requiring the parties to enter into a subsequent written agreement to grant and identify cross-easements. Moreover, Shedd also recognized that an easement which is not specifically located and described is too indefinite to be established and protected. For the foregoing reasons, I believe the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying specific performance and its judgment should be upheld. [[Image here]]