Clayton v. Planet Travel Holdings, Inc.
988 N.E.2d 1110
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Gary and Marsha Clayton paid Planet Travel Group $12,738.64 for a Cancun trip, with deposits and balance paid in 2007; Apple Vacations reportedly received insufficient funds.
- Defendants, led by planet Travel Group’s president Fuener, provided disputed payment proofs (four checks not cleared or signed) and claimed refunds.
- Defendants failed to secure confirmation or full payment from Apple/GoGo; plaintiffs never received full payment for the trip.
- December 2007 sale of Planet Travel Group assets to Fuener as Planet Travel Holdings for $1; dissolution of Planet Travel Group in February 2008; Fuener later formed Planet Travel Holdings in Nevada (2009).
- Litigation endured long discovery, multiple continuances, and a bench trial in July 2011 where the court found Consumer Fraud Act violations and breach of contract; attorney fees were awarded in 2011 and later adjusted in 2012.
- In May 2012 a hearing on attorney fees was held; the court ultimately awarded $32,306.25 in attorney fees and $680.67 in costs, and Fuener was later found personally liable for the judgment and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney fees under the Consumer Fraud Act were reasonable? | Clayton: fees reasonable given duration and efforts to recover. | Clayton: fees excessive relative to $5,994.32 recovery; cashier’s check compromise attempt. | Fees upheld as reasonable under the Act. |
| Are attorney fees proper under breach of contract if the Act suffices? | Clayton: Act suffices; contract fees unnecessary. | Fuener: contract allows fees; separate issue. | No reversal; fees affirmed under the Consumer Fraud Act; contract claim not needed. |
| Fuener personally liable as successor/continuation? | Clayton: continued operation and asset sale to Fuener show continuation; liability should attach. | Fuener: corporate separateness; no personal liability. | Fuener personally liable; mere continuation and asset transfer to avoid liability proven. |
| Disclosure of fee agreement privileged; should it be disclosed? | Attorney-client privilege asserted over fee agreement. | Access to fee agreement should be allowed to challenge fees. | Privilege note; court did not rely on fee agreement for reasonableness; not necessary to decide. |
Key Cases Cited
- Demitro v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 388 Ill. App. 3d 15 (2009) (reasonableness factors for attorney fees under CFA)
- Parker v. Nichting, 2012 IL App (3d) 100206 (Ill. App. 3d 2012) (fees reasonableness considerations)
- Vernon v. Schuster, 179 Ill. 2d 338 (1997) (exceptions to successor nonliability)
- Eychaner v. Gross, 202 Ill. 2d 228 (2002) (standard for reviewing damages and fees; manifest weight)
- Kleczek v. Jorgensen, 328 Ill. App. 3d 1012 (2002) (abuse of discretion standard for fee awards)
- Strong v. City of Peoria, 401 Ill. App. 3d 1096 (2010) (damages and fee award review standards)
- Carey v. American Family Brokerage, Inc., 391 Ill. App. 3d 273 (2009) (attorney fees reasonable connection to recovery)