Court Opinion

ID: 9744324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:00:54.185748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:48.365641
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON REHEARING Mr. JUSTICE DIXON delivered the opinion of the court: The defendants have filed a petition for rehearing, urging that our opinion was based on an argument improperly raised for the first time in the plaintiff’s reply brief, and that under the law of South Dakota all charges in connection with the extension of credit are governed by the South Dakota Interest Act.  The defendants are correct in pointing out that under Supreme Court Rule 341, subparagraphs (e)(7) and (g) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 341), points not argued in an appellant’s brief are deemed waived and are not to be raised for the first time in the appellant’s reply brief. However, it is established that Rule 341 states an admonition to the parties and not a limitation upon the jurisdiction of a reviewing court, and under Rule 366 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 366) a reviewing court may, in the exercise of its responsibility for a just result, ignore consideration of waiver and decide a case on grounds not properly raised or not raised at all by the parties. (See Hux v. Raben, 38 Ill. 2d 223, 224-25; In re Application of County Treasurer, 25 Ill. App. 3d 717, 718-19; People v. Henderson, 119 Ill. App. 2d 403, 405.) To reach a just result in this case we should consider all the points which, were raised. The defendants, in arguing that under South Dakota law all charges in connection with the extension of credit are governed by the South Dakota Interest Act, cite Rollinger v. J.C. Penney Co. (1971), 86 S.D. 154, 192 N.W.2d 699, and also a South Dakota Attorney General’s opinion, Opinion No. 74-25, which states that “all charges in connection with the extension of credit are interest.” The plaintiff, responding, points out that in the case cited, the finance charges which were held to be interest were charges under an agreement by the creditor to forbear immediate collection of its money if minimum installment payments were made as provided in a revolving charge account agreement; that service or finance charges were said in that case not to be “interest” unless imposed for the lending, or the forbearance of collection, of money; and that where, as in the case before us, there is no provision for installment payments or any agreement by the seller to refrain from requiring prompt payment in full when a bill is rendered, a service or finance charge is not “interest” but simply represents the opposite of a discount for prompt payment, i.e., a penalty for failure to make prompt payment when due. The South Dakota court, in the case on which both parties rely, stated as follows: “In our opinion a sale of merchandise made and to be paid for pursuant to a revolving charge account agreement such as we have here does not qualify as a true timeprice sale.” In holding that the particular charge account agreement resulted in usury, the court pointed out that, interest, as defined by South Dakota statute, was “compensation allowed for the use, or forbearance, or detention of money or its equivalent.” The court said, further: “Forbearance signifies a contractual obligation of a lender or creditor to refrain, during any given period of time, from requiring the borrower or debtor to repay a loan or debt.”  The South Dakota case and the Attorney General’s opinion are insufficient, we believe, to establish that under the law of South Dakota, where there is no agreement by the creditor to forbear, a service or finance charge added for late payment is “interest” and the South Dakota statute on interest is applicable in the interpretation of the provision for that charge. We therefore adhere to our original position that extrinsic evidence may be considered in the case before us; that the intent of the parties may be reached by looking to the practical construction they gave their contract by their own acts; and that the contract should accordingly be read as imposing a charge of 1% per month, not \% per year, on past due balances. Accordingly, the order of the Circuit Court of Kane County is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. T. J. MORAN, P. J., and RECHENMACHER, J., concur.