Giannini v. First Nat'l Bank of Des Plaines
136 Ill. App.3d 971, 483 N.E.2d 924 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract for the sale of a physically constructed but not yet legally declared condominium unit is subject to specific performance. The seller's successor in interest cannot defeat this remedy by claiming economic hardship or impossibility when the failure to legally create the unit is a result of their own inaction, particularly when that party is judicially estopped from changing its position from a prior proceeding.
Facts:
- John Giannini executed a purchase agreement with Stape Builders, Inc. to buy a specific condominium unit (B-70) in the Castilian Courts Condominium Complex, which was under construction.
- Giannini paid $62,330 in earnest money towards the total purchase price of $79,515.
- The property was held in a land trust by First National Bank of Des Plaines, with Stape Builders acting as agent for the beneficiary.
- The building containing Giannini's specified unit was physically constructed.
- Unity Savings Association (Unity), the mortgage holder, initiated foreclosure proceedings on the property.
- In its foreclosure action, Unity represented to the court that it would complete the condominium project as planned by Stape Builders, and based on this, it was allowed to voluntarily dismiss its action and take title to the property.
- After acquiring title, Unity refused to legally declare Giannini's building as a condominium or convey his unit, citing unfavorable economic conditions.
- Stape Builders, Inc. was later involuntarily dissolved by the State of Illinois for failure to pay franchise taxes.
Procedural Posture:
- John Giannini filed a two-count complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County against First National Bank of Des Plaines, Stape Builders, Inc., and Unity Savings Association, seeking specific performance and money damages.
- Unity filed a motion to dismiss the specific performance count against it, raising affirmative defenses.
- The trial court granted Unity's motion and dismissed the specific performance count as to Unity, but refused to make the order final and appealable.
- Eleven months later, Giannini filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
- The trial court denied Giannini's motion for leave to amend and entered a final, appealable order on this denial and the previous dismissal.
- Giannini, as appellant, appealed both the dismissal of his specific performance count and the denial of his motion for leave to amend to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a contract for the sale of a physically constructed but not yet legally declared condominium unit warrant the equitable remedy of specific performance, despite claims of economic hardship and legal non-existence by the seller's successor in interest?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice Jiganti
Yes, the contract warrants the equitable remedy of specific performance. A contract for the sale of real property is presumptively subject to specific performance, and a condominium is a form of real property. The defendant's arguments against this remedy fail because: 1) The unit's 'non-existence' is purely a legal fiction created by the defendant's own refusal to file the necessary declaration, not a physical impossibility. A party cannot leverage its own failure to perform as a defense. 2) The claim of economic hardship is insufficient to defeat specific performance, especially since financial difficulty is not considered a form of impossibility that excuses performance. 3) Unity is barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel from arguing that completing the project is a hardship, as it previously represented in a separate foreclosure proceeding that it would complete the project to its own advantage. 4) Giannini's legal remedy of money damages is inadequate because the original builder (Stape Builders) has been dissolved and the land trust holding the property is now empty, making a monetary judgment likely uncollectible.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that condominium units are treated as unique real property for the purposes of specific performance, just like other forms of real estate. The decision significantly limits the ability of sellers or their successors to evade contractual obligations due to subsequent, unfavorable market shifts. Furthermore, it provides a strong application of judicial estoppel, preventing litigants from adopting contradictory positions in different legal proceedings to suit their immediate needs. The ruling protects purchasers, particularly when their legal remedies like money damages are rendered ineffective by the seller's insolvency or dissolution.
Unlock the full brief for Giannini v. First Nat'l Bank of Des Plaines