Hollywood Boulevard Cinema LLC v. FPC Funding II, LLC
2014 IL App (2d) 131165
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Hollywood Boulevard Cinema, LLC leased 1,200 seats and a custom elevator from IFC and Bulthaup personally guaranteed the lease.
- IFC allegedly assigned the lease and guaranty to FPC Funding II, LLC (FPC); Hollywood later stopped payments after receiving conflicting collection demands and IFC’s bankruptcy.
- FPC sued Bulthaup on the personal guaranty after Hollywood’s claims were stayed in bankruptcy and moved for summary judgment on its counterclaim against him.
- FPC supported its motion with affidavits and a bankruptcy-court settlement order stating certain leases were sold to FPC; Bulthaup argued the purchase agreement required a written, dated assignment that was never produced.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for FPC against Bulthaup; Bulthaup moved to reconsider only the fee award, the judgment was amended on fees, and Bulthaup appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over appeal after amended judgment | Bulthaup's premature notice became effective when the court disposed of his postjudgment motion; no new notice required to review undisturbed portions | Amended judgment required a new or amended notice to preserve appeal | Court: Appellant need only file new/amended notice if challenging the amendment; Bulthaup's original premature notice became effective as to the undisturbed portion |
| Summary judgment on guaranty (assignment of lease) | FPC: affidavits and bankruptcy settlement order establish assignment and ownership; summary judgment appropriate | Bulthaup: purchase agreement required a written dated assignment as a condition precedent; absence of such writing defeats assignment; settlement insufficient | Court: Bulthaup lacks standing to challenge noncompliance with the purchase agreement (he’s not a party); his separate arguments about insufficiency of evidence were forfeited for lack of authority/argumentation; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Rennick, 181 Ill. 2d 395 (ill. 1998) (rule interpretation follows statutory principles)
- In re Storment, 203 Ill. 2d 378 (Ill. 2002) (plain meaning guides rule interpretation)
- Robidoux v. Oliphant, 201 Ill. 2d 324 (Ill. 2002) (use plain and ordinary meaning of rules)
- Morrissey v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC, 404 Ill. App. 3d 711 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010) (summary-judgment construction against movant)
- Gillespie v. Community Unit School District No. 7, 2014 IL 115330 (Ill. 2014) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Stoller v. Exchange National Bank of Chicago, 199 Ill. App. 3d 674 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990) (assignment requires transfer of identifiable interest)
- Klehm v. Grecian Chalet, Ltd., 164 Ill. App. 3d 610 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (assignment may be oral or written)
- Strosberg v. Brauvin Realty Services, Inc., 295 Ill. App. 3d 17 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (when no writing exists, examine surrounding circumstances to determine intent)