Hamer Holding Group, Inc. v. Elmore
613 N.E.2d 1190, 184 Ill. Dec. 598, 244 Ill. App. 3d 1069 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The enforceability of a covenant not to compete, even one ancillary to the sale of a business, is dynamically assessed for reasonableness, which can diminish over time due to protracted litigation, and injunctive relief may be denied if monetary damages offer an adequate remedy and enforcement would cause undue hardship.
Facts:
- In 1979, AMCO Realty and Management Company (AMCO) was incorporated in Illinois, with Stephen Elmore as its sole shareholder and chief executive officer, to provide management services to condominium and homeowner associations.
- On March 15, 1984, Elmore, acting as CEO of AMCO, contracted to convey all of AMCO's corporate assets, including goodwill, to First Eagle Holding Company, Inc. (First Eagle).
- Prior to the March 30, 1984 closing date, Elmore, as a condition precedent to the asset sale, entered into an employment contract with First Eagle that included a covenant not to compete.
- On March 26, 1984, First Eagle assigned its right to purchase AMCO and Elmore's employment contract to its subsidiary, First United ICI, Inc. (First United I).
- Elmore served as CEO of First United I, which managed condominium associations, townhouse associations, and some commercial properties, until he voluntarily terminated his employment on March 1, 1988.
- On October 31, 1988, First United I sold its assets, including Elmore's employment agreement, to Studio 2, Inc., which was then designated First United Property Management, Inc. (First United II).
- In November 1988, six months into the three-year covenant period, Elmore contacted his former clients, offering them his managerial services within the geographically restricted area.
- When First United II's president, Mark Maute, learned of Elmore's actions, Elmore cautioned Maute that if he was not released from the covenant, he "was prepared to go down in flames and take everyone else with him" and threatened to spread false rumors about First United II's management abilities.
Procedural Posture:
- Shortly after November 1988, First United II initiated an action in the circuit court (trial court) seeking, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin Elmore from violating his covenant not to compete.
- The trial court held evidentiary hearings on the preliminary injunction motion, found the restraint reasonable in geographic scope and duration, but denied injunctive relief, holding that First United II had no protectable interest.
- First United II filed an interlocutory appeal (Hamer I) to the Illinois Appellate Court, First District.
- In Hamer I, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's finding regarding a protectable interest, holding that the covenant was ancillary to the sale of AMCO and First United II had a legitimate interest in AMCO's goodwill.
- The Appellate Court in Hamer I remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of (1) the scope of First United II's business at the time Elmore left, and (2) whether the restraint was reasonable based on that scope.
- Elmore petitioned for a rehearing of Hamer I, which the Appellate Court denied on October 9, 1990.
- Elmore sought leave to appeal Hamer I to the Illinois Supreme Court, which was denied on February 6, 1991.
- The mandate from Hamer I was filed with the trial court on March 19, 1991.
- On August 29, 1991, First United II initiated proceedings seeking direction on how to comply with the remand order; the trial court then ordered the parties to brief whether the injunction should issue at all, considering the elapsed time and the expiration of the three-year restraint.
- On October 21, 1991, First United II filed an amended verified complaint, continuing to seek injunctive relief but also adding counts for damages, accounting, and disgorgement, which remained pending.
- After briefs and a hearing on February 18, 1992, the trial court issued a memorandum of opinion on March 10, 1992, finding that the scope of First United II's business was limited to managerial services for condominium and townhome associations.
- On March 25, 1992, the trial court directed Elmore to file his verified answer and ordered the parties to brief issues regarding the propriety of an injunction after the covenant's expiration and the impact of changed circumstances.
- On June 30, 1992, the trial court denied First United II's motion for injunctive relief, finding that issuing an injunction at that late date would be vindictive, unduly harsh on Elmore, impossible to enforce, and that First United II could be adequately compensated by damages.
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 trial court err by refusing to enjoin a former employee from violating a covenant not to compete when the original three-year restraint period has expired during protracted litigation, given the diminished necessity of the restraint over time and the availability of monetary damages for the breach?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scariano
No, the trial court did not err in refusing to issue a preliminary injunction to enforce the covenant not to compete against Elmore because the restraint was no longer reasonable as a matter of law. The court affirmed the 'manifest weight of the evidence or erred as to the applicable law' standard of review established in Hamer I, given that the trial court's proceedings on remand effectively decided the merits of the injunction. The appellate court found that the trial court did not violate its mandate by considering memoranda on the reasonableness of the restraint or the possibility of additional evidence, as reasonableness is a question of law that can be debated and the mandate contemplated supplementing the record. Applying the three-part test for reasonableness of restraints ancillary to a business sale—(1) necessity to protect the purchaser, (2) unoppressiveness to the seller, and (3) no harm to the public—the court determined that First United II failed to meet its burden. First, First United II offered no substantive argument for why the full extent of the restraint was necessary nearly 10 years after the sale and 5 years after Elmore's departure, as the importance of the goodwill and restraint naturally diminishes over time. Second, the availability of monetary damages for Elmore's breach, which were already being sought in a pending action, constituted an adequate remedy, making injunctive relief less necessary. Third, enforcing the injunction at such a late date would be unduly harsh on Elmore, who had relied on the trial court's initial denial of the injunction (later reversed) to invest in a competing business. Therefore, the appellate court concluded that the restraint was no longer reasonable and the injunction was properly denied.
Concurring - McCormick, P.J.
Concur.
Concurring - DiVito, J.
Concur.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces that the reasonableness and enforceability of covenants not to compete are not static but dynamically assessed, particularly when injunctive relief is sought long after a breach. It highlights that courts will disfavor injunctions when delays in litigation have diminished the protective purpose of the covenant, when monetary damages are an adequate alternative remedy, or when enforcement would cause disproportionate hardship. The decision underscores the judiciary's preference for competition over strict contractual enforcement in the absence of a compelling, currently active protective interest, providing guidance on how courts should weigh the passage of time and the availability of other remedies in such disputes.
