Court Opinion

ID: 9401355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-12 20:05:52.501907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:52.286162
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 190293-U
                                        No. 1-19-0293

                                                                              FIRST DIVISION
                                                                                  June 12, 2023

 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent
 by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
 ____________________________________________________________________________

                                    IN THE
                        APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                           FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
 ____________________________________________________________________________

  GEORGE BOULOS,                                 )      Appeal from the Circuit Court of
                                                 )      Cook County, Municipal
         Plaintiff-Appellant,                    )      Department, First Division
                                                 )
  v.                                             )      No. 2018 M1 110228
                                                 )
  PETER BRUSS                                    )      The Honorable
                                                 )      Yvonne Coleman,
         Defendant-Appellee.                     )      Judge Presiding.

        JUSTICE PUCINSKI delivered the judgment of the court.
        Justices Lavin and Hyman concurred in the judgment.

                                            ORDER

¶1     Held: We affirm the judgment of the circuit court in favor of Defendant and against
       Plaintiff in the underlying small claims suit regarding a breach of contract dispute
       regarding the sale of photos. In the interest of judicial economy, we remand the matter to
       the circuit court to determine Defendant’s compliance with the court’s order to return the
       71 photos identified in the court’s judgment order.

¶2     Plaintiff-Appellant George Boulos (“Boulos”) filed a pro se complaint in small claims

court regarding a contract dispute between himself and Defendant-Appellee Peter Bruss (“Bruss.”)

Following a bench trial, the circuit court entered judgment in favor of Bruss and against Boulos.

The circuit court also ordered Bruss to return certain photos in his possession at issue in the
1-19-0293

litigation. Boulos now appeals from the judgment of the circuit court, seeking reversal of the

decision, fees and costs of the underlying litigation and appeal, consideration of whether Bruss

violated the court’s order to return the photos by the deadline provided, and for this Court to direct

the circuit court to determine whether Bruss’s alleged violation of its order warrants an

adjudication of indirect criminal contempt. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of

the circuit court, and we remand the matter to the court for determination of whether Bruss violated

the court’s order regarding return of certain photos.

¶3                                       BACKGROUND

¶4     This matter arises out of a dispute regarding the sale of photos. Boulos and Bruss first

interacted around November 2017, when Bruss, an art dealer, purchased some vintage photos from

Boulos’s eBay store. Later, Bruss contacted Boulos via his eBay email account to inquire about

purchasing additional photos. The parties continued the rest of their conversations and transactions

off of eBay, communicating via email and one phone call, the length of which the parties disputed

at trial, but which both agree occurred. Boulos presented at trial several pages of extensive email

communications between the parties, discussing Bruss’s purchase of more vintage photos from

Boulos, including discussion of photo quality, the kind and quality of photos Bruss was interested

in purchasing, whether to conduct a bulk sale or as individual pieces, etc.

¶5     Following these negotiations, the parties eventually agreed to the sale of 90 photos for the

price of $10,409.50. Bruss made a down payment of $500, and Boulos sent the photos. After

receiving the photos, Bruss emailed Boulos and informed him that some of the photos were not in

good condition, that he was sending those photos back, and that he offered to make immediate

partial payment of $5,000, plus the remaining balance after the proper adjustments were made.

Boulos responded that he considered this a breach of their agreement, and demanded the return of

                                                -2-
1-19-0293

all 90 photos that Bruss purchased. The parties were unable to resolve their differences, and Boulos

filed a complaint in small claims court, seeking the remaining $9,909.50 balance, plus interest and

costs of litigation, on April 19, 2018.

¶6     The circuit court held a bench trial on September 25, 2018. After the close of Boulos’s

case, Bruss moved for a directed judgment on the grounds that Boulos had failed to prove the

existence of an enforceable contract. The court denied the motion, and in a ruling issued on January

10, 2019, the court found that the parties had a valid and enforceable oral contract for the sale of

90 photos for the price of $10,409.50. The circuit court further found that, under the terms of the

contract, Boulos had an obligation to deliver photos that met Bruss’s requirements regarding

condition and quality. Noting that the only evidence on the condition and quality of the photos

came from the testimony of the parties, and further noting Bruss’s expertise as an art and antiques

dealer, the court determined that Bruss was only obligated to pay for the photos that were in good

condition as per his opinion. The court entered judgment in favor of Bruss and against Boulos,

with each party to bear their own costs of litigation. The court additionally ordered that Bruss

return the 71 photos in his possession within 20 days.

¶7     Boulos now appeals pro se from that order. He argues, without citation to any caselaw

supporting his claims, that the circuit court erred in its findings of facts, and that it was

unreasonable for the circuit court not to award Boulos his litigation costs because Bruss violated

the circuit court’s order by failing to return all 71 photos at issue by the court’s deadline. The

court’s factual findings with which Boulos takes issue are: (a) the finding of an oral, rather than

written contract and the court’s treatment of the conflicting evidence regarding the single phone

call between the parties; (b) the court’s alleged ignoring of certain email exchanges in which Bruss,

after Boulos showed him examples of some of the photos and/or described their condition,

                                                -3-
1-19-0293

including flaws, if any, told Boulos that he did not need further details on the remainder of the

photos, as he trusted Boulos to price the photos accordingly based on their individual quality; and

(c) the court’s alleged ignoring of Boulos’s testimony that because he agreed to receive payment

(minus $500) after Bruss received the photos, contingent on the photos arriving in “good order,”

this was evidence of Boulos’s honest and transparent dealings, and therefore the court should have

found that Bruss, and not Boulos, breached the contract. Boulos also claims that Bruss violated the

court’s order by failing to return all of the 71 photos at issue, failing to return them by the court’s

20-day deadline, failing to return the photos in good condition, and by selling some of the photos

on his eBay store instead of returning them. Bruss did not respond to Boulos’s argument on appeal.

¶8     Boulos requests the following relief: (a) reversal of the circuit court’s judgment, (b) an

award of litigation costs and expenses from the underlying case and the present appeal; (c) this

Court’s consideration of “the repercussions of [Boulos’s] claim” that Bruss violated the circuit

court’s order by “deliberately not returning all the goods he was ordered to return,” and (d) for this

Court to direct the circuit court to “try to ascertain that that issue [of Bruss’s alleged violation of

the court’s order] be appropriately addressed” by the circuit court upon a petition for adjudication

of indirect criminal contempt.

¶9                                           ANALYSIS

¶ 10                                     Record on Appeal

¶ 11   As an initial point, we note certain issues pertaining to the record in this matter. As there

was no transcript in the underlying bench trial, Boulos, without attempting to prepare a bystander’s

report with Bruss’s counsel, submitted his own proposed report, which the circuit court denied.

Boulos petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus to have the circuit court approve his report.

We denied the petition, and granted Boulos time to file the bystander’s report approved by the

                                                 -4-
1-19-0293

circuit court. While Boulos refers to the existence of a bystander’s report prepared by the circuit

court, this report is not included in the record. Additionally, the record does not contain any filings

from Bruss, apart from his opposition to Boulos’s motion to approve his bystander’s report.

Despite the limited record on appeal, it is certified by the circuit court and shall be considered as

true and accurate. See Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 323(c), 329; Herhold v. Herhold, 123 Ill.App.2d 329, 296

(1st Dist. 1970) (The trial court’s certification of the record is conclusive in the reviewing court.)

Furthermore, the information before us is sufficient to allow us to discern the issues and consider

this appeal.

¶ 12                                     Standard of Review

¶ 13   Boulos states on appeal that the issues presented relate to the circuit court’s findings of

facts. A trial court’s findings of facts are awarded significant deference and will not be disturbed

on appeal unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Eychaner v. Gross, 202

Ill.2d 228, 251 (2002); Cole v. Guy, 183 Ill.App.3d 768, 775 (1st Dist. 1989). A decision is against

the manifest weight of the evidence only where an opposite conclusion is apparent or when the

findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence. Eychaner¸ 202 Ill.2d

at 252; Rhodes v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 172 Ill.2d 213, 242 (1996). We bear in mind that the

trial judge has the benefit of observing the conduct and representations of the parties, counsel,

witnesses, and all others present at trial, and thus is better positioned than this Court to weigh the

credibility, truthfulness, and potential bias of the testimony presented before it, and to resolve

conflicting testimony. Eychaner, 202 Ill.2d at 251; Cole, 183 Ill.App.3d at 775.

¶ 14                            The Circuit Court’s Findings of Fact

¶ 15   The first issue Boulos raises is that the court erred in finding the existence of an oral contact

rather than a written contract consisting of the emails exchanged between the parties, which

                                                 -5-
1-19-0293

include all of the terms of their agreement. Regardless of the contract’s form, Boulos does not

challenge the circuit court’s findings that a valid, enforceable contract existed between the parties,

for the sale of 90 photos for the price of $10,409.50. Because the form of the contract is irrelevant

in this matter, we decline to make any determination on the circuit court’s findings, and

furthermore, we note that we may affirm the circuit court on any grounds supported by the record,

regardless of whether the circuit court relied on those grounds or whether the circuit court's

reasoning was correct. See DiCosola v. Ryan, 2015 IL App (1st) 150007, ¶ 8. Regardless of

whether the contract was written or oral, the record supports a finding of the existence of an

enforceable contract, with the terms identified by the circuit court in its order, and whether the

contract was oral or written is immaterial to our decision.

¶ 16   Boulos next claims that the circuit court ignored portions of the parties’ email exchanges

in which, after Boulos sent Bruss specific details about the quality of various photos, Bruss

informed him that he need not contact Bruss about any minor flaws with the remaining photos, as

Bruss trusted him to price them accordingly. This, Boulos claims, meant that Bruss waived any

right to return or refuse payment of photos that did not meet his standards. We find the circuit

court’s determinations that Boulos was obligated to deliver photos that met Bruss’s requirements

is not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and Bruss was only obligated to pay for the

photos that were, in his opinion, in good condition. We note that these conclusions are not at odds

with Bruss expressing trust in Boulos pricing the photos according to their condition. Giving

deference to the circuit court in hearing the parties’ testimony at trial, we decline to reverse the

court’s judgment.

                                                -6-
1-19-0293

¶ 17                       Whether Boulos Could Recover Court Costs

¶ 18    In addition to seeking reversal of the circuit court’s judgment against him and in favor of

Bruss, Boulos argues that the court should have ordered Bruss to pay Boulos’s litigation costs and

expenses in addition to ordering him to return the 71 photos. He claims that, prior to filing suit, he

gave Bruss the option to return the photos, which he did not do. Therefore, according to Boulos,

Bruss made it necessary for Boulos to incur the costs of filing suit, and the court should have

required Bruss to pay those costs. Boulos provides no authority to support his challenge to the

circuit court’s choice of relief. Contrary to Boulos’s contention, he chose to file suit against Bruss

to enforce the agreement between them. Generally, parties are responsible for their own litigation

costs, absent the existence of a statute authorizing the recovery of costs by the prevailing party.

Grauer v. Clare Oaks, 2019 IL App (1st) 180835, ¶ 146. Boulos does not claim that any such

statute applies in this matter. Furthermore, Boulos was not the prevailing party in the underlying

suit.

¶ 19                    Whether Bruss Violated the Circuit Court’s Order

¶ 20    Finally, Boulos argues that Bruss violated the circuit court’s order to return the 71 photos

within 20 days of the judgment, and seeks from this Court an order instructing the circuit court to

consider whether Bruss could be held in indirect criminal contempt. This Court is not the correct

forum for enforcing the circuit court’s order, nor would it be proper for us to instruct the circuit

court to consider a hypothetical petition from Boulos to have Bruss held in criminal contempt. If

Boulos wishes to file such a petition with the circuit court, that is his prerogative and we make no

further statement on this issue. Furthermore, if Boulos believes that Bruss violated the circuit

court’s order, he can seek enforcement of that order with the circuit court. To that effect, we

remand this matter for the circuit court to determine Bruss’s compliance with its order.

                                                -7-
1-19-0293

¶ 21                                      CONCLUSION

¶ 22   For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County in favor of

Defendant and against Plaintiff is affirmed. The matter is remanded to the circuit court for the

purpose of determining Defendant’s compliance with the court’s instructions to return the 71

photos referenced in the court’s order.

¶ 23   Affirmed and remanded.

                                             -8-