County Line Nurseries & Landscaping, Inc. v. Glencoe Park District
2015 IL App (1st) 143776
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- County Line sued Glencoe Park District for breach of a landscaping contract; Park District counterclaimed. Litigation involved multiple substitutions of County Line counsel.
- At a June 18, 2014 status hearing, County Line’s president Collins, attorney Kenney (not of record), and Park District counsel Jones discussed settlement; Collins and Jones shook hands on a $17,500 compromise and Jones later prepared and emailed a release.
- Disputes arose about whether substitute counsel (Zohaib Ali / M. Hedayat & Associates) timely filed and served an appearance by the court-ordered deadline (June 26); the Park District moved to enforce the oral settlement and sought sanctions under Ill. S. Ct. R. 219(c).
- The trial court found Jones’s account credible, enforced the oral $17,500 settlement, and held County Line violated the court’s order to appear through counsel; it awarded the Park District $8,673.76 in fees/costs.
- On appeal the court affirmed enforcement of the oral settlement (finding objective manifestation of agreement) but reversed the fee award and remanded for a narrower sanctions hearing limited to fees actually caused by County Line’s failure to serve its substitute counsel’s appearance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (County Line) | Defendant's Argument (Park District) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence/enforceability of oral settlement | Collins says no meeting of minds; thought discussions were preliminary; Kenney lacked authority | Jones: objective agreement—$17,500 offer, handshake, Jones prepared release and confirmed Park District approval | Affirmed: enforceable. Court found Jones credible; parties’ conduct showed objective meeting of minds. |
| Authority / ratification of Kenney | Kenney was not retained and lacked authority to bind County Line | Even if Kenney lacked authority, Collins’ presence and failure to repudiate ratified Kenney’s actions | Alternate basis accepted by trial court but appellate decision rests on Collins’ own agreement; ratification not necessary to decide. |
| Sanctions under Rule 219(c) for failure to file/serve appearance | County Line: appearance was timely filed/served (June 26) | Park District: appearance not served until July 30; fees incurred as result of noncompliance | Sanctions finding (violation) upheld as not an abuse of discretion, because competent evidence showed service delay and County Line raised contrary proof late and via hearsay. |
| Amount and scope of fee award | County Line: award excessive, no hearing on fee reasonableness | Park District: full fees between June 19–Sept 23 caused by misconduct | Reversed in part: trial court abused discretion by awarding the full $8,673.76; remanded for hearing limited to fees/costs actually caused by failure to serve appearance (court previously awarded $350 as reasonable baseline). |
Key Cases Cited
- K4 Enterprises, Inc. v. Grater, Inc., 394 Ill. App. 3d 307 (App. Ct. 2009) (manifest weight review discussed for settlement findings)
- Schroeder v. CMC Real Estate Corp., 157 Ill. App. 3d 757 (App. Ct. 1987) (enforcement without evidentiary hearing ordinarily improper when material facts disputed)
- City of Chicago v. Ramirez, 366 Ill. App. 3d 935 (App. Ct. 2006) (de novo review when trial court enforces settlement without evidentiary hearing and based solely on affidavits)
- Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School, 69 Ill. 2d 320 (Ill. 1977) (secret subjective intent immaterial to meeting of the minds)
- Smith v. Gleash, 325 Ill. App. 3d 79 (App. Ct. 2001) (trial court abused discretion by awarding attorney fees unrelated to sanctionable misconduct)
- Cedric Spring & Associates, Inc. v. N.E.I. Corp., 81 Ill. App. 3d 1031 (App. Ct. 1980) (purpose of Rule 219 sanctions is to compel compliance with court orders)