Hajicek v. Nauvoo Restoration, Incorporated, 2014 IL App (3d) 121013

Hajicek donated a religiously significant painting to Church-affiliated entities in Feb 2000; a contemporaneous memorandum (with handwritten changes) stated he could select “10 to 20” surplus Nauvoo Temple stones.
When Hajicek attempted to collect stones, NRI denied access; COP returned the painting to Hajicek in March 2000 and he signed a receipt acknowledging return.
Hajicek sued in 2004 for breach of contract and specific performance; defendants moved for summary judgment in 2011 asserting lack of contract, accord and satisfaction, laches, and that specific performance was improper.
The trial court initially denied summary judgment, finding material factual disputes (including consideration, meeting of the minds, and whether return of the painting was substitute performance), and held laches did not bar the suit.
Defendants moved to reconsider based on newly produced audio/video recordings and attached exhibits; the court allowed reply exhibits (some of which were not newly discovered) and then granted summary judgment to defendants on accord and satisfaction and rescission theories.
The appellate court reversed and remanded: it held the trial court abused its discretion in granting reconsideration based on evidence that was not newly discovered and erred in granting summary judgment on accord and satisfaction and on a rescission theory first raised at reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court properly granted motion to reconsider	Hajicek: defendants did not present new law or newly discovered evidence warranting reconsideration	Defendants: newly discovered audio/video justified reconsideration	Reversed — court abused discretion because key exhibits relied on were available earlier and not newly discovered
Admissibility/use of recordings and exhibits	Hajicek: recordings lacked foundation/hearsay; some exhibits unrelated to newly discovered evidence	Defendants: recordings were newly discovered and supported defenses	Recordings considered (objections waived below), but reliance on non-new exhibits was improper for reconsideration
Accord and satisfaction as basis for summary judgment	Hajicek: disputed intent and lack of a specific new offer; material facts remain	Defendants: undisputed facts (return of painting, plaintiff’s conduct) establish accord and satisfaction	Reversed — no evidence a new offer was made or accepted; material questions remain, so summary judgment inappropriate
Rescission raised at reconsideration	Hajicek: defendants never pled or timely raised rescission; cannot be decided for first time on reconsideration	Defendants: recordings warranted raising rescission at reconsideration	Reversed — rescission was a new affirmative theory not pled earlier; trial court erred in granting judgment on that basis

Farley Metals, Inc. v. Barber Colman Co., 269 Ill. App. 3d 104 (Ill. App. Ct.) (purpose of motion to reconsider: newly discovered evidence, change in law, or legal error)
In re Marriage of Gowdy, 352 Ill. App. 3d 301 (Ill. App. Ct.) (standard of review for motion to reconsider: abuse of discretion)
Werner v. Botti, Marinaccio & DeSalvo, 205 Ill. App. 3d 673 (Ill. App. Ct.) (failure to raise hearsay/foundation objections below waives challenge on appeal)
Saichek v. Lupa, 204 Ill. 2d 127 (Ill. 2003) (elements and intent requirement for accord and satisfaction)
Benson v. Stafford, 407 Ill. App. 3d 902 (Ill. App. Ct.) (arguments not raised in trial court cannot be raised for first time on appeal)
Barth v. Kantowski, 409 Ill. App. 3d 420 (Ill. App. Ct.) (a party may not raise a new legal theory for the first time in a motion to reconsider)