Lobello v. Lobello
2025 IL App (1st) 232412-U
Ill. App. Ct.2025Background
- Victor Lobello (Plaintiff) sued his brother, Domenico Lobello (Defendant), for breach of contract, claiming he fully paid for a Honda Accord but Domenico refused to transfer the vehicle title.
- Domenico counterclaimed, alleging Victor failed to repay loans: (1) $5,000 for a Ford Focus payoff, (2) $7,000 for home repairs, and (3) amounts for miscellaneous items; he sought recovery via breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
- The bench trial resulted in judgment for Victor on the Honda Accord (entitled to title) and for Domenico on the counterclaims (awarded $5,295 total comprised of $4,500 for the Focus loan proceeds and $795 for home repair loans).
- Victor appealed only the award on the counterclaims, arguing he had paid all sums owed under the written agreement and the court erroneously awarded sums not covered by pleadings or supported by evidence.
- No trial transcript existed; the appeal relied on an agreed statement of facts and documentary exhibits (handwritten ledgers and the 2019 written agreement).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Written Agreement | Agreement covered all debts, so paying $10,950 satisfied everything owed | Agreement covered only Honda Accord sale | Court found agreement only covered Honda Accord sale, not other debts |
| Car Loan for Ford Focus | Defendant admitted only $300-$600 owed, so award should be reduced | Plaintiff owed full proceeds from sale, as he agreed to repay from sale | Award of $4,500 to defendant affirmed as supported by evidence |
| Home Repair Loans | No claim properly pleaded for $795 repayment; award improper | Claims for home repair loans were pleaded and supported by evidence | Award for $795 on home repair loans proper under breach of contract/unjust enrichment claims |
| Ambiguity/Use of Parol Evidence | Agreement ambiguous due to different amounts; court should consider outside evidence | Language clear, so no ambiguity or parol evidence needed | Court found no ambiguity; $10,950 applied only to Honda Accord |
Key Cases Cited
- Tunnell v. Edwardsville Intelligencer, Inc., 43 Ill. 2d 239 (no abatement upon party death if merits have been affirmatively determined)
- First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128 (appellate court may decide based on appellant's brief alone if record is simple)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Anderson, 2011 IL App (1st) 110748 (contract interpretation requires looking to parties' intent)
- Meyer v. Marilyn Miglin, Inc., 273 Ill. App. 3d 882 (contract unambiguity precludes use of parol evidence)
- King v. Find-A-Way Shipping, LLC, 2020 IL App (1st) 191307 (manifest weight of evidence standard for damage awards after bench trial)
- Tison & Hall Concrete Products Co. v. A.E. Asher, Inc., 86 Ill. App. 2d 34 (judgment must conform to pleadings)
- Finn v. Project Resource Solutions, LLC, 2024 IL App (1st) 221016 (cannot recover on claims not pleaded)