Bonhomme v. St. James
945 N.E.2d 1181
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiff Bonhomme, a California resident, engaged in online chats with defendant St. James on the Deadwood Boards, where defendant posed as multiple fictional characters including 'Jesse James'.
- From 2005 to 2007, Bonhomme exchanged emails, gifts, and personal items, and traveled funds totaling over $10,000 related to the relationship and associated fantasies.
- Bonhomme spent approximately $700 preparing to move to Colorado to live with 'Jesse' after an in-person meeting was planned but canceled.
- Defendant admitted creating at least 20 fictional characters and deceiving Bonhomme about their reality, causing emotional distress and ongoing therapy costs.
- Bonhomme filed a five-count and then seven-count complaint alleging various torts, but the trial court dismissed most counts under section 2-615; only frauduated misrepresentation remained pending, later dismissed again.
- On appeal, the court held that Bonhomme failed to preserve most counts for review but reversed as to Count I (fraudulent misrepresentation) and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of fraudulent misrepresentation claim | Bonhomme pleaded ongoing false representations by multiple characters created by St. James. | Representations were fictional and not false statements of material fact. | Fraudulent misrepresentation adequately pleaded; count reversed and remanded. |
| Preservation of dismissed counts on appeal | Noted preserved counts despite dismissal in earlier pleadings. | Counts were abandoned and not preserved for appeal. | Counts I–VII of second amended complaint abandoned; only Count I preserved for appeal; reversal as to Count I only. |
| Whether extending fraudulent misrepresentation to noncommercial/personal settings is appropriate | The tort should extend given economic losses and deceptive conduct beyond purely commercial contexts. | Should not extend to purely personal online deception. | Court held expansion appropriate under the circumstances, given economic losses and the nature of the deception. |
| Justifiable reliance | Plaintiff relied on the false representations created by defendant's masquerade. | Internet truthfulness is routinely unreliable; reliance not justified. | Justifiable reliance pleaded; factual issue for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Dilling, 228 Ill.2d 324 (Ill. 2008) (fraudulent misrepresentation elements; limits to commercial contexts with expansion in limited circumstances)
- J.C. Bureau v. Catholic Charities (Roe) of the Diocese of Springfield, 225 Ill.App.3d 519 (Ill. App. 1992) (adoption context; limits on extension of fraud claim beyond commercial settings)
- Roe v. Jewish Children's Bureau of Chicago, 339 Ill.App.3d 119 (Ill. App. 2003) (adoption context; recognition of some fraud-based claims in special contexts)
- Ottawa Savings Bank v. JDI Loans, Inc., 374 Ill.App.3d 394 (Ill. App. 2007) (preservation of appellate rights for dismissed claims)
- Weidner v. Karlin, 402 Ill.App.3d 1084 (Ill. App. 2010) (pleading standard; favorable view to plaintiff on 2-615 motion)
- Raleigh v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., 403 Ill.App.3d 863 (Ill. App. 2010) (de novo review for 2-615 dismissals; factual inferences in plaintiff's favor)
- Johnson v. Waterfront Services Co., 391 Ill.App.3d 985 (Ill. App. 2009) (justifiable reliance; context-specific assessment)
- Marino v. United Bank of Illinois, N.A., 137 Ill.App.3d 523 (Ill. App. 1985) (reliance without investigation when false sense of security created)