Joseph Frazier, DDS v. Dettman
155 Ill. Dec. 771, 212 Ill. App. 3d 139, 569 N.E.2d 1382 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A restrictive covenant in an employment contract is unenforceable by a dissolved professional partnership because, having ceased ongoing operations, the partnership no longer possesses a legitimate business interest, such as an active client base or goodwill, that requires protection.
Facts:
- In 1985, Dr. Joseph Frazier and Dr. George Dallas formed a partnership to practice dentistry in McHenry County.
- The partnership hired Dr. Gary Dettman, a dentist who had not previously practiced in McHenry County.
- On August 1, 1987, Dettman signed an employment contract with the partnership containing a restrictive covenant.
- The covenant prohibited Dettman from engaging in any competitive dental practice in McHenry County for two years after the termination of his employment.
- The contract also specified that all patient records were the property of the partnership.
- Frazier and Dallas dissolved their partnership effective September 17, 1990.
- As a result of the dissolution, Dettman's employment with the partnership was terminated on September 22, 1990.
- Following his termination, Dettman opened his own dental practice in Woodstock, within McHenry County, and began treating former patients of the partnership.
Procedural Posture:
- George Dallas, individually and on behalf of the dissolved partnership, filed a complaint against Gary Dettman in the circuit court of McHenry County, seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant.
- The trial court initially granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing Dettman from practicing dentistry in the county.
- Dettman filed an interlocutory appeal, and the appellate court vacated the TRO.
- Plaintiffs then moved for a preliminary injunction in the trial court.
- Dettman filed a motion to dismiss the counts of the complaint based on the restrictive covenant.
- The trial court denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction and granted Dettman's motion to dismiss, finding the restrictive covenant unenforceable as a matter of law.
- Plaintiffs appealed both the denial of the preliminary injunction and the dismissal of their complaint to the appellate court, which consolidated the two appeals.
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 restrictive covenant in an employment contract remain enforceable by a dissolved partnership, or its individual former partners, after the partnership has ceased its ongoing business operations?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice Reinhard
No, a restrictive covenant in an employment contract does not remain enforceable by a dissolved partnership or its individual former partners after the partnership has ceased its ongoing business operations. A restrictive covenant is only valid if it is necessary to protect a legitimate business interest. For a professional practice, this interest consists of its client relationships and goodwill. Because the partnership here is dissolved and no longer has an ongoing dental practice, it has no existing client base or business interest to protect from competition. The court rejected the argument that the covenant protects the value of the partnership's goodwill as a winding-up asset, citing precedent that professional partnerships generally have no distributable goodwill upon dissolution because their value is tied to the individual skill of the partners. Furthermore, an individual partner cannot enforce the covenant because the contract was between the employee and the partnership as a legal entity, not the partners in their individual capacities.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that the enforceability of a restrictive covenant is contingent upon the continued existence of the legitimate business interest it was designed to protect. It clarifies that when a business entity, particularly a professional partnership, dissolves, its legal right to shield itself from competition via a non-compete agreement is extinguished. The ruling also reinforces the legal principle that professional service firms have minimal to no transferable goodwill as a distributable asset, limiting the arguments available to partners during dissolution. This precedent significantly impacts employment contracts in professional fields, as it prevents former partners from using a defunct entity's contractual rights to stifle competition for their own new, individual practices.
