Jameson Real Estate, LLC v. Ahmed
129 N.E.3d 128
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Jameson Real Estate (through broker Art Collazo) introduced Aqueel Ahmed to an off-market car wash property owned/managed by Terraco; Collazo used a confidentiality agreement before sharing financials.
- Collazo initially considered buying the property himself but later sought a 5% broker commission for Jameson; he provided brokerage services to Ahmed in early 2013 and presented an unsigned brokerage agreement.
- Ahmed negotiated and ultimately purchased the property (title held by SS 2130, an LLC owned by Ahmed) in a transaction closed September 30, 2013; no commission was paid to Jameson at closing.
- Jameson sued Ahmed claiming quantum meruit (among other counts); after a bench trial the court entered judgment for Jameson on quantum meruit for $50,000.
- The trial court found Jameson (via Collazo and another Jameson broker) was the procuring cause of Ahmed’s opportunity to purchase the property and that $50,000 was a reasonable value for the services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement under quantum meruit | Jameson performed non‑gratuitous brokerage services that benefited Ahmed and had no written contract, so it deserves recovery for reasonable value. | Ahmed contends he never agreed to Jameson as his broker and thus did not owe a commission. | Court: Jameson entitled to quantum meruit; it was procuring cause and Ahmed benefited. |
| Measure/value of recovery | Value may be assessed by reasonable broker commission or percentage of sale price and evidence supports $50,000. | $50,000 unsupported; no expert proof and plaintiff sought 5% (~$115,000). | Court: $50,000 reasonable — Terraco paid itself $50,000 commission and witnesses said $50,000 was reasonable. |
| Who benefited (proper defendant) | Jameson argues Ahmed personally benefitted from the brokerage services even if title held by his LLC. | Ahmed argues beneficiary was Terraco or SS 2130, not him, so judgment against him is improper. | Court: Ahmed personally benefitted (signed purchase agreement, could assign to LLC); finding he benefited not against manifest weight. |
| Unclean hands / broker bad faith | N/A (plaintiff seeks recovery). | Ahmed argues Collazo acted in bad faith (didn't list the property; delayed asserting claim) so equitable relief barred. | Court: Defense forfeited (not raised at trial) and, on merits, unclean hands inapplicable — alleged misconduct targeted Terraco, not Ahmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eychaner v. Gross, 202 Ill. 2d 228 (Ill. 2002) (standard for manifest weight review and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Gambino v. Boulevard Mortgage Corp., 398 Ill. App. 3d 21 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (bench-trial fact finding not disturbed unless against manifest weight)
- Installco, Inc. v. Whiting Corp., 336 Ill. App. 3d 776 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003) (elements of quantum meruit)
- Van C. Argiris & Co. v. FMC Corp., 144 Ill. App. 3d 750 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986) (services must provide measurable benefit for quantum meruit)
- Pietka v. Chelco Corp., 107 Ill. App. 3d 544 (Ill. App. Ct. 1982) (procuring cause and broker entitlement)
- Allabastro v. Nardi & Co., 20 Ill. App. 3d 323 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974) (quantum meruit recovers reasonable value of services)
- Anderson v. Gewecke, 36 Ill. App. 3d 170 (Ill. App. Ct. 1976) (amount awarded in quantum meruit is factual for trial court)