Schwinder v. Austin Bank of Chicago
348 Ill.App.3d 461, 809 N.E.2d 180, 284 Ill.Dec. 58 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A subsequent agreement between parties that alters material terms of an original contract, such as by removing one party's right to terminate, constitutes a valid modification that supersedes the inconsistent original terms. Additionally, the equitable remedy of specific performance is appropriate for a breach of a real estate contract when the property is unique to the buyer and legal damages are inadequate.
Facts:
- Thomas Schwinder and Susan Londay entered into a contract to purchase a condominium from Marian Baginski, with the contract stipulating that the buyers' sole remedy in case of seller default was the return of their earnest money.
- Shortly before the scheduled closing, Baginski informed Schwinder and Londay that the sale was delayed due to an injunction related to his divorce proceeding.
- Because the buyers' lease was expiring, the parties executed a 'preclosing possession agreement' (PCPA) allowing Schwinder and Londay to move into the condo in exchange for a monthly fee of $1,500.
- The PCPA gave Schwinder and Londay the 'sole option' to terminate the contract if the closing did not occur by a specified date, but gave no such right to Baginski.
- Relying on the agreements, Schwinder and Londay moved into the unit, installed a washer and dryer, made other improvements, and withdrew $10,000 from a 401(k) retirement plan for the down payment.
- After the legal injunction was lifted, making the sale possible, Baginski refused to schedule a closing date despite multiple requests from Schwinder and Londay.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas Schwinder and Susan Londay filed a complaint for specific performance against Austin Bank of Chicago and Marian Baginski in an Illinois state trial court (chancery division).
- Baginski filed a counterclaim seeking possession of the condominium and damages for unpaid rent.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for Schwinder and Londay, granting specific performance of the purchase contract and denying Baginski's counterclaim.
- Baginski filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied.
- Baginski, as appellant, petitioned the Appellate Court of Illinois for leave to appeal the trial court's judgment, which the appellate court granted.
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 subsequent preclosing possession agreement that grants the buyer the sole option to terminate a real estate contract modify the original contract's provision limiting the buyer's remedy to the return of earnest money, thereby allowing a court to grant specific performance upon the seller's breach?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Gordon
Yes, a subsequent agreement that grants the buyer the sole option to terminate modifies the original contract and permits the remedy of specific performance. The court found that the preclosing possession agreement (PCPA) was a valid modification to the original purchase contract because it satisfied all requirements for a contract: offer, acceptance, and consideration. The PCPA's provision giving the buyers the sole option to terminate was inconsistent with the original contract's clause that allowed the seller to terminate by simply returning the earnest money. In cases of inconsistency, the terms of the later agreement control, thus divesting the seller of his termination right and removing the limitation on the buyers' remedies. The court also held that even if the original right to terminate remained, the seller was estopped from exercising it due to his conduct—such as allowing possession and making repairs—which induced the buyers' detrimental reliance. Finally, specific performance was deemed a proper remedy because real estate is considered unique, the buyers had made the specific unit their home, and a legal remedy of monetary damages would therefore be inadequate.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that parties can alter their contractual rights and remedies through subsequent agreements, and courts will enforce these modifications. It highlights that a party's course of conduct can waive rights expressly reserved in an original contract, particularly through the doctrine of estoppel. The ruling affirms that specific performance remains a powerful and appropriate remedy for breaches of real estate contracts, especially where a buyer has taken possession and made improvements, thus making the specific property uniquely valuable to them. This case serves as a precedent that subsequent accommodations, like a preclosing possession agreement, can supersede clauses limiting remedies and expose a breaching seller to equitable enforcement rather than just monetary damages.
Unlock the full brief for Schwinder v. Austin Bank of Chicago