Court Opinion

ID: 9744505
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:04:50.728625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:49.746125
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The standard of review, being manifest weight, supports affirming the trial court. The majority concludes that the settlement agreement was breached and cannot be enforced. Wilkerson is discussed with respect to plaintiffs contention that the settlement agreement was obtained by misrepresentation of defendant’s counsel to plaintiffs counsel. Wilkerson discussed proof of misrepresentation sufficient to constitute fraud and the issue of fraud in relation to breach of fiduciary relation. As to misrepresentation and fraud, the trial court stated: “Plaintiff contends she was fraudulently induced into the agreement by representations of defense counsel as to defendant’s financial status. *** Defense counsel did represent that if the defendant was forced to pay more than $150,000.00 defendant might face the ‘spectre of bankruptcy.’ This type of financial ‘gloom and doom’ hyperbole (the defendant actually had sufficient assets to pay the full amount of the judgment although it appears that defendant does have an uncertain financial future) does not rise above the level of negotiation technique. The plaintiff could have requested financial information from defendant to verify defendant’s financial position before finalizing any settlement.” Wilkerson supports the trial court’s order. As to plaintiffs request that the agreement be rescinded, the trial court further stated: “Plaintiff asks for rescission of the agreement as the remedy for defendant’s nonpayment. Plaintiff points out that she has received no money yet and defendant could have tendered all the money except for the withholding claim by the defendant (approximately $1,000.00). Defendant contends that it is ready, willing and able to tender the settlement amount and just wants a determination of the tax question. Rescission is an equitable remedy and in view of the strong policy of the law in favor of settlement of disputes (Cameron v. Bogusz, [305 Ill. App. 3d 267, 711 N.E.2d 1194 (1999))], this Court will not rescind the settlement agreement. However, as a court of equity the court will reform the agreement to provide that defendant pay plaintiff, in addition to the full settlement amount of $225,000.00, judgment interest at the rate of 9% from the date of September 17, 2002, to the date of payment.” As stated, I would affirm the trial court.