2012 IL App (1st) 122812
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Five Mile holds the Junior C interest in the $86 million loan on the Westin North Shore hotel.
- Berkadia, as special servicer, foreclosed and Berkadia purchased the property at sale.
- Inland American Wheeling Loan Investment, LLC holds the Junior B interest; Inland identified as controlling participant.
- Plaintiff sought to block the sale and/or be declared controlling participant; a lis pendens was filed.
- Circuit court denied injunction, granted strike of prayers for injunctive relief, and quashed lis pendens.
- Appellate court affirmed denial of injunction and quashing of lis pendens; jurisdiction over lis pendens appeal questioned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court abused discretion in denying injunction | Five Mile argues irreparable harm and inadequate at-law remedy. | Berkadia/Inland contend adequate remedy at law; no irreparable harm shown. | No abuse of discretion; no irreparable harm shown; injunction denied. |
| Whether lis pendens quash order is appealable under Rule 307(a)(1) | Quash order effectively enjoined sale; appeal permissible. | Lis pendens quash is an administrative act, not an injunction. | Limited appellate jurisdiction; lis pendens order not appealable under Rule 307(a)(1). |
| Whether appellate review should apply de novo or abuse of discretion | Rule 2-615 dismissal concerns do not control injunctive ruling. | Standard governs injunctive ruling; abuse of discretion review. | Abuse of discretion standard applied to injunction ruling. |
| Whether plaintiff's remedy at law was adequate | Damages would be speculative; loss could be quantified by higher sale price. | Damages are calculable; plaintiff’s appraisals do not prove inadequacy of money damages. | Remedy at law adequate; no injunctive relief necessary. |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required | Unknown facts warrant hearing on maximum damages and irreparable harms. | No material factual disputes; hearing unnecessary. | No evidentiary hearing required; ruling based on complaint. |
Key Cases Cited
- Callis v. Norflok & Western Ry. Co., 195 Ill. 2d 356 (2001) (injunction standard and abuse of discretion framework)
- Travelport, LP v. American Airlines, Inc., 2011 IL App (1st) 111761 (2011) (damages impossibility undermines adequacy of remedy at law)
- Gannett Outdoor of Chicago v. Baise, 163 Ill. App. 3d 717 (1987) (lost business damages not adequate where calculable)
- Kmoch v. Klein, 214 Ill. App. 3d 185 (1991) (discovery-like orders not necessarily interlocutory appeals)
- In re A Minor, 127 Ill. 2d 247 (1989) (nonfinal orders; equity distinctions in appealability)
- Oxequip Health Industries, Inc. v. Canalmar, Inc., 94 Ill. App. 3d 955 (1981) (discovery-like orders; administrative nature of some rulings)
- Clemons v. Mechanical Devices Co., 202 Ill. 2d 344 (2002) (_rule 307(a)(1) interlocutory appeal principles)
- Schlicksup Drug Co. v. Schlicksup, 129 Ill. App. 2d 181 (1970) (hearing on injunction depends on pleadings and dispute of material facts)