Gagnon v. Schickel
2012 IL App (1st) 120645
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Gagnon and Schickel allegedly formed a joint venture to purchase the Tinley Park property and share costs and profits; Gagnon paid part of the purchase price, utilities, taxes, and improvements.
- Schickel never recorded a quitclaim deed conveying 50% ownership to Gagnon, remaining sole record owner of Tinley Park.
- In 2006, Schickel pressured to be listed as co-owner on a Bourbonnais property; Gagnon paid all related expenses and collected rental income.
- In 2008, their relationship deteriorated; Schickel denied any interest of Gagnon in Tinley Park and it was learned no quitclaim had been recorded.
- Gagnon filed an amended complaint with counts seeking declaratory relief, specific performance, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, fiduciary duty, promissory estoppel, estoppel, fraud, constructive trust, and recission, plus counts against non-party defendants; several counts were dismissed pre-trial, others tried with mixed outcomes.
- Trial court granted promissory estoppel relief but rejected unjust enrichment, fraud, and constructive trust claims; on appeal, the first three counts were affirmed as properly dismissed, while some other claims were reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counts I–III were properly dismissed | Gagnon contends a joint venture/oral contract existed to share Tinley Park ownership. | Schickel argues lack of a definite oral contract and conflicting documentary evidence defeats each claim. | Counts I–III properly dismissed. |
| Whether declaratory relief was proper given lack of enforceable agreement | Plaintiff seeks declarations of joint venture and breach and estoppel. | Without an enforceable contract, declaratory relief is improper. | Declaratory relief properly dismissed. |
| Whether unjust enrichment claims survive given alleged express contract | Unjust enrichment related to Tinley Park and Bourbonnais properties; gift/transactions suggest quasi-contractual relief. | Existence of express contracts precludes unjust enrichment. | Count III (Tinley Park) affirmed dismissal; Count IV (Bourbonnais) reversed and remanded for further proceedings. |
| Whether promissory fraud and related constructs support relief | Schickel promised to quit-claim ownership she never intended to perform, constituting fraud. | Promissory fraud requires a scheme to defraud; evidence showed lack of intent to perform. | Promissory fraud found actionable; remanded for further findings; constructive trust tied to fraud also remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. Rzonca, 133 Ill. App. 3d 184 (1985) (pleading standard on dismissal for failure to state claim)
- Wysocki v. Bedrosian, 124 Ill. App. 3d 158 (1984) (exhibits to complaints form part of pleadings)
- Estate of Casey, 222 Ill. App. 3d 12 (1991) (exhibits control when inconsistent with pleadings)
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. James Chisholm & Sons, Inc., 133 Ill. App. 3d 238 (1985) (exhibit integrity and incorporation into pleadings)
- Anson v. Haywood, 397 Ill. 370 (1947) (performance exception to statute of frauds for land contracts)
- Perez v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc., 301 Ill. App. 3d 413 (1998) (unjust enrichment cannot apply where express contract governs)