*1 аre affirmed convictions foregoing, defendant’s light of the modified. are affirmed as his sentences
Judgment affirmed modified. CERDA, JJ.,
RIZZI and concur. al., BANK, DEMOS et Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GUS J. PLAZA EDENS Defendants-Appellees. (3rd Division) 1—94—0756
First District No. Rehearing February Opinion denied filed November 1995.— GREIMAN, P.J., dissenting. *2 George Gary Green, Karcazes, D. Ltd., Karcazes and E. both Martin & of Chicago, appellant.
of for Fumo, Chicago, appellees.
Michael of R. opinion JUSTICE RIZZI delivered the of the court: This case two involves lawsuits that were consolidated. In lawsuit L—24944, plaintiff No. Edens Plaza Bank filed a two-count 87— complaint Demos, against Demos, defendants Gus J. James 120 South Restaurant, State corporation, Street Illinois and Louis Demos to principal recover the on promissory interest a note given Restaurant, Restaurant, Park Plaza Park Plaza d/b/a Edens Plaza I complaint against to Demos, Bank. Count of the was Gus J. Restaurant, Demos
James and 120 South State Street complaint of only against Count II was In their Demos. complaint answer to the the defendants raised affirmative defenses. L—16268, In plaintiff lawsuit No. Park Plaza 90— Inc., brought an action defendant Edens Plaza Bank based on promissory liability note and several lender claims similar to the affirmative raised in defenses lawsuit No. 87—L—24944. The No. charges 90—L—16268 lawsuit Edens Plaza with of breach contract, deceptive consumer fraud and practices, business and bad faith respect promissory with to the note. lawsuits,
On the scheduled trial date of pursu- the consolidated release, ant to a settlement all mutual of the claims in lawsuit No. 90—L—16268 and of the claims and affirmative de- fenses in I of count lawsuit No. 87—L—24944 were dismissed with prejudice. After a II bench trial on count in lawsuit No. 87—L— findings law, the triаl court filed fact and conclusions judgment in entered favor Louis Demos and Edens Plaza Bank. Edens Plaza Bank has appealed. judgment. We affirm the 30, 1985, Restaurant, Inc.,
On June d/b/a $320,000 interest, plus a promissory executed note for in favor of the Edens Plaza Bank. United States Small Business (SBA) transaction; participant-guarantor Administration was a addition, guarantor. SBA a 90% J. James Demos was Gus and 120 South State Street executed written Also, primary guarantors promissory for the as guarantees promissory guarantee for the note executed written Louis Demos $50,000.” "limited to provided promissory for the note documents
The loan security Bank had first lien the Edens Plaza that as collateral agree- Park Plaza Restaurant. The loan in the interest assets provided that the ment documents also immediately, proceeds rather the not to be disbursed but
note was stages to as follows: note were be disbursed for the premises $163,000.00 improvements business for leasehold on "1. Chicago, Michigan Illinois. Ave. located at 150 N. $107,000.00 machinery, equipment, furniture purchase
2. fixtures. and/or blanket $50,000.00 working capital. There is be no working capital.”
disbursement testimony president of Edens Plaza According to the proceeds for Jones, disbursed the loan Plaza Bank the Edens John note as follows: paid 23, 1985, Plaza Bank the Edens September 1. On being participant-guarantor. The directly to as a fee for SBA directly SBA a fee Plaza Bank the Edens if it by treating it as the Edens Plaza Bank accounted for $50,000 working capital to be disbursed under part *3 promissory note. $160,000 14, 1985, paid Bank to August the Edens Plaza 2. On Restaurant, Inc., improvements. Park for leasehold Plaza 17, 1985, Edens Plaza Bank debited and 3. On October Restaurant, Inc., the amount Park Plaza account in credited the $1,006 $1,006 promissory note. The debit for interest due on the interest, by for the Edens Park and credit for due was accounted $50,000working capital by treating part it if it of the Bank as were promissory under the note. to be disbursed $57,649 6, 1985, paid to the Edens Plaza Bank 4. On November Restaurant, Inc., improvements. for leasehold Park Plaza $35,767 6, to 1985, paid Bank the Edens Plaza 5. On November Restaurant, Inc., furniture and fixtures. Park Plaza for 1985, Bаnk and credited the Edens Plaza debited 6. In November amount of in the account the Park Plaza $1,660.26 promissory $1,660.26 note. The interest due on the for by Edens due was accounted debit and credit interest $50,000working part of by treating it if were Park Bank as it promissory note. capital to be disbursed under 30, 1985, Edens Plaza Bank debited On 7. November Restaurant, Inc., amount in the Park Plaza account credited the $41,166.60 promissory for interest due on the note. The $41,166.60 by debit and credit for interest due was accounted for by treating part $50,000 the Edens Park Bank it if as it were of the working capital promissory to be disbursed under the note. 16, January 1986, On Plaza Edens Bank debited and Restaurant, Inc., credited Park Plaza account in the amount $2,616.35 $2,616.35 promissory for interest due on the note. The debit and credit for interest due was accounted for the Edens by treating $50,000 Park part it as if it working were of the capital be promissory to disbursed under the note. January 16,1986, $5,888.67
9. On Plaza Bank made a entry Restaurant, Inc., in the Park Plaza account. The record is $5,888.67 unclear as to whether actually transmitted to Restaurant, Inc., working capital as merely or was entry debit and credit charged working interest due capital. No documentary proof was introduced into evidence. 1986,
10. On March Bank debited and Restaurant, Inc., credited Park account in the amount $2,728.29 $2,728.29 promissory for interest on the due note. The debit and credit for interest due was accounted for the Edens by treating $50,000 part Park Bank working it if it were capital promissory to be disbursed under the note. 7, 1986,
11. On March the Edens Plaza Bank debited and Restaurant, Inc., credited the Park Plaza account in the amount $8,213.05 $8,213.05 promissory for interest due on the note. The debit and credit for interest due was accounted for the Edens by treating part Park Bank as if working it it were capital promissory to be disbursed under the note. 13, 1986, May
12. On the Edens Plaza Bank debited and credited the Park Plaza account in the amount of $8,257.54 $8,257.54 interest due on the note. The debit and credit for interest due was accounted for the Edens by treating part working Park Bank capital as if it it were disbursed under the May 13. On the Edens Plaza Bank improvements, for leasehold furniture and fixturеs.
According testimony Jones, to the of John no other disbursements for the note made the Edens Plaza Bank. *4 sum, the total disbursements made Edens Plaza Bank for improvements $270,000. leasehold and furniture and fixtures were According to Restaurant, actually money was Restaurant, Inc., transmitted Edens Plaza Bank to Park Plaza working capital.
205 Restaurant, Inc., alleged it made numerous disburse Edens Plaza Bank to demands to phone calls and written note, $50,000 working capital pursuant promissory to it a demands. As requests and Bank refused the but the Edens Plaza 1986, its assets in result, Park Plaza Restaurant closed to- applied at a sale. sold for were , pursuant promissory note amount due on the a reduction of the ward promissory interest under to the Edens Plaza Bank’s secured guarantor promissory on the Also, pursuant being to its a 90% 1986, 18, SBA reimbursed the Edens note, on November $284,261.25. Bank 23, 1987, Bank filed lawsuit No. the Edens Plaza
On November SBA was entirely on the note. The 87—L—24944 based lawsuit, bring not and the Edens Plaza did party not a subrogee of SBA. The SBA was not assignee as or the lawsuit an lawsuits, making SBA is not party to a either twо appeal. SBA involved in the claim. Nor is the as defendants Gus J. I of lawsuit No. 87—L—24944 names Count Demos; Demos; State Street James and 120 South alleges I defaulted on the Count that Park on unpaid note and that "there is due and Plaintiff $299,243.92 as of October the sum of in aforesaid Note interest, $42,137.42 diem per and the in with principal, sum of per day.” alleges I thereafter Count further that Gus J. $85.20 Demos, State James South Street as guarantors of the note. Count I concludes follows: BANK, "WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, EDENS PLAZA prays Judgment herein Banking Corporation, Illinois DEMOS, DEMOS, Defendants, and 120 GUS J. JAMES RESTAURANT, INC., jointly and sevеr- SOUTH STREET STATE ally, FORTY-ONE THOU- amount of THREE HUNDRED THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY-ONE SAND 34/100 DOLLARS, ($341,381.34) plus per diem of EIGHTY-FIVE ($85.20) paid, until from October DOLLARS 20/100 together expenses herein.” with all of the Plaintiff’s only. alleges: Count II Count II is defendant Louis Demos Defendant, Demos, pursuant to his obligation "The Guaranty, $50,000.00, appears his is in the amount of Guaranty, hereto.” copy of which is attached the follow- complaint, and included
The defendants answered ing affirmative defenses:
"AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES COMMONFACTS j¡* í¡í ij; 3. agreed That the EDENS PLAZA STATE BANK to fund the guaranteed SBA RESTAURANT, loan to the PARK PLAZA INC. $320,000 in the operation amount of for the installation and of a Michigan Avenue, Chicago, new restaurant located at 150 North County, Cook Illinois. $270,000 4. That of the loan was to be for of the equip- construction including purchase restaurant facilities of fixtures and working capital. ment and towas be for 5. approved When the SBA the loan transaction with Plaintiff INC., RESTAURANT, and PARK PLAZA the SBA determined succeed, that in order for the in the working RESTAURANTto capital necessary, required by amount of would as guidelines. SBA studied,
6. extensively analyzed Each Defendant had and evalu- capital requirements ated the of the new with venture Plaintiff during negotiations culminating agreement. with the loan knew, agreеd Plaintiff funding understood and and disburs- $50,000 working ing capital portion vitally of the loan was necessary to the success of the venture. Plaintiff never manifested any dispense intent that it would not until after the loan documents were executed. guaranties
7. Defendants would never have executed but for provision their reliance on the for disbursement Plaintiff of the $50,000 working capital acknowledgment and Plaintiff’s possessed the venture could not it succeed unless sufficient work- ing capital. granted Since the security
8. venture had Plaintiff a writtеn assets, interest all its as was demanded Plaintiff as a pursuant agreement, condition execution the loan Plaintiff knowledge that, had actual all because of the borrower’s assets encumbered, practical ability the venture had no to make borrowings working capital. other to obtain Notwithstanding express written covenant to fund and $50,000 working capital provided disburse the in the 'D’) agreement, (Group loan written demands Exhibit and numer- calls, telephone working ous Plaintiff never disbursed moneys Instead, capital to the appropriated borrower. Plaintiff working capital proceeds moneys using to itself [i.e., working capital repay earmarked for itself on interest] portions improvement equipment the leasehold of the loan. provide 10. Because of the failure of Plaintiff to the borrower $50,000working capital with the and because Plaintiff held a first could the borrower so that of the borrower all of the assets lien on failed, loans, became borrower practically make other not insolvent, under the bank- ultimately petition for relief filed a 87 B 11272. August Docket No. ruptcy laws on DEFENSE FIRST seeking upon the Guaranties. estopped relief 1. Plaintiff DEFENSE SECOND good implied covenant of flagrant of its breach 1. Plaintiff’s against Defendants. dealing any relief is a bar to faith and fair DEFENSE THIRD upon performance dependent 1. Performance Defendants obligations under all of its loan and disbursement Plaintiff of agreement. *6 the loan DEFENSE FOURTH operates to fraud and Plaintiff is constructive
1. The conduct of discharge from their Guaranties. Defendants DEMOS; DEMOS;
WHEREFORE, Defendants, JAMES GUS J. RESTAURANT, INC., Illinois 120 SOUTH STATE STREET DEMOS, Complaint be pray that the Corporation; and LOUIS dismissed.” 10, 1990, filed lawsuit
On October The lawsuit suit No. 90—L—16268. against Edens complaint herein. The note discussed upon based defen- as affirmative allegations that were included makes the same addition, however, upon based In in suit No. 87—L—24944. ses charges also 90—L—16268 allegations, complaint in suit No. same decep- contract, fraud and consumer Plaza Bank with breach of respect to the faith with practices, and bad tive business 90—L—16268 were and suit No. suit No. 87—L—24944 trial date 26, 1993, the scheduled April which was consolidated. On lawsuits, Plaza Bank and of the consolidated State and 120 South James Demos Gus agreement and mutual executed settlement Street and suit No. 90—L—16268 release, prejudice with which dismissed de- L—24944, the affirmative and dismissed No. count I of suit 87— The settlement 87—L—24944. fenses asserted in suit No. provide: release and mutual obligations forth this set Except promises
"2. as to hereby Edens, do AGREEMENT, and Guarantors Borrower other, respective discharge and their each release and forever directors, officers, shareholders, attorneys, agents, employees, successors, predecessors, assigns, personal representa- heirs claims, demands, any actions, petitions tives from and all or suits whatsoever, unknown, kind whether known or from the beginning AGREEMENT, including of time the date of this limitation, all without in claims that or could have been raised resulting sale, lawsuit or from the aforementioned attorney’s and all claims for fees and costs.” As a result of release, par- the settlement and mutual ties to document the following stipulation filed in the trial court:
"STIPULATION parties IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and bеtween the hereto, through respective Attorneys, their as follows: DEMOS, Complaint 1. That Count I of herein GUS J. DEMOS, JAMES and 120 SOUTH STATE STREET RESTAU- RANT, dismissed, costs, prejudice INC. be with and without controversy parties having fully matters in between the been settled, adjourned. compromised, and Defendants, 2. That the Affirmative Defenses of GUS J. DEMOS, DEMOS, JAMES SOUTH STATE STREET RESTAURANT, dismissed, preju- INC. be withdrawn with dice. BANK,
EDENS PLAZA an Illinois Corporation, Banking Plaintiff DEMOS, DEMOS, GUS J. JAMES RESTAURANT,INC., 120 SOUTH STATE STREET Corporation, an Illinois Defendants. agreed pursuant order of dismissal that was entered to the
stipulation states: "This case continues to James Count Demos on *7 Demos, however, II.” a party James was not count II.
A bench trial was hаd as to count II in case No. 87—L—24944. Jones, president Bank, The of Plaza Edens John testified as the that made Plaza Bank fact disbursements and the the that SBA reimbursed the Edens Plaza Bank in the of amount $284,261.25. Jones also testified the assets Park John $50,000, Plaza Restaurant were sold at a for that the sale $50,000 applied was a the amount on the towards reduction of due promissory note. Louis Demos was adverse called witness Bank, signed he had testified that he the limited testified, guarantee for the note. No other witnesses following except no other evidence was received the documents: (1) (Edens I); $320,000 Plaza Bank’s the note exhibit (Edens (2) guarantee signed by limited Plaza Bank’s Louis Demos Demos (3) of Louis statement II); personal financial a exhibit (Edens III). documentary proof or itemiza- No exhibit Plaza Bank’s balances, any unpaid relating into evidence introduced tion was under due or or interest disbursements the fol- trial, entered trial court of After the conclusion judgment order: fact, of law findings conclusions lowing Complaint in 1987 filed a two-count [Plaza] "The Edens Park Plaza аrising loan made to out of a I directed Count was Inc., 87—L—24944. under case number Restaurant, Inc., pri- borrower, and the against the Demos, Gus Demos loan: James mary guarantors of the entire II was directed Count Street [S]outh and 120 against State only the loan. In Demos, guaranteed who an action commenced L—16268, alleged in which it number Edens Bank under case 90— defenses liability to the affirmative claims similar several lender for trial. cases were consolidated in the 1987 case. two raised Restaurant, Inc. sold all of In the 120 South State Street addition, $50,000. the SBA reimbursed its assets agreement) $284,261.25 agreement (guaranty purchase a under guaranteed primarily Plaza and the SBA. The loan between by Demos, State Street and the 120 South Gus James when, Restaurant, Inc., the eve of were released on all of whom respect to trial, 26,1993, parties this matter with April settled Agreement and Complaint Settlement I under-a Count of Mutual Release. Were Principal Debtors Obligation Released When
Demos’ Was Agreement. In The Settlement Released limited liability guarantor general 'Thе rule is that and that if principal debtor greater than that of the and is no debtor, guaran- principal recovery against the be had could Busey liability.’ Hensler v. from tor would also be absolved liability, Following principle of this 598 N.E.2d extinguished liability present case was in the defendant’s by the entered into Agreement and Mutual Release Settlement In Plane v. Cullom underlying cause of action. parties in the (4th 1987), 1062,1064 Dist. Capital Woodworking, 506 N.E.2d the court held: ultimately guaranty agreement
Although language liability, general rule is guarantor’s specific determines satisfaction, principal discharge, or extinction guarantor. liability obligation also ends bar, agreement as well as the at both the settlement In the case the UCC $284,261.25by SBA and payments *8 210 property
personal satisfy sale to Plaza the debt and leave no re- Furthermore, by course the defendant Louis Demos Plaza. (limited guaranteed the performance defendant debtor’s $50,000) agreement That loan. ceased to exist with release, nothing and settlement mutual and guarantee. for defendant remained thereforе, Judgment hereby Now is in entered favor of the de- Bank, plaintiff, fendant Louis Edens Park complaint.” on its agree with
We the trial court that the settlement and mutual lender, borrower, Bank, release between the Plaza Park joined primary guarantors, note, claims and affirmative defenses for the dis charged obligation and released the and affirmative defenses of the guarantor, limited Nothing Louis Demos. remained for Louis Demos (See guarantee (1992), Busey or defend. Hensler v. Bank 231 Ill. App. 1269; 3d Woodworking, 598 N.E.2d Palen v. Cullom Capital 1062.) (1987), court, Aрp. 154 Ill. 506 3d N.E.2d The trial therefore, properly judgment entered in favor of Louis Demos and against Edens Plaza Bank.
Edens Plaza Bank first contends that the trial court in erred holding that note was satisfied virtue of the $284,261.25 payment by the SBA from the sale of the assets of the Park Plaza Restaurant. We need not decide issue, however, that affirm judgment because we of the trial court on the basis the settlement and release mutual between lender, borrower, and the joined by guarantors, primary for all claims and note, discharged affirmative dеfenses for and released obligation guarantor, affirmative defenses of the limited Louis Demos. "obliga
Edens Plaza next contends that Demos’ guaranty tions under the were not satisfied or released the settle ment obligations and mutual release” because the borrower, discharged by "were the bank ruptcy has court.” Edens’ contention no merit for several reasons. First, trial obligations there was evidence in the that the debt and discharged bankruptcy were court. Nor there is evidence obligations in the recоrd to establish that the debt and discharged bankruptcy. is an exhibit in the record There which Meeting pursuant filing chapter "Notice of Creditors” to a under Bankruptcy meeting 11 of the A Code. notice of creditors under chapter however, filing, particular 11 does not mean that a debtor or Moreover, chapter 11 debtor discharged. obligation has been debt or (See Bankruptcy 2d 9B Am. Jur. discharge. generally may denied be (1991).) on the evidence based judgment A must examined § judgment at the time the proofs in the record at trial рroof in the rec- trial and no Here, at there was no evidence entered. obligation any debt or judgment was entered ord at the time the *9 discharged bankruptcy. in was by given a and release addition, case involves settlement this bankruptcy a not creditor, Bank. It does involve Edens Plaza the of the cases debt. In none proceeding bankruptcy on a claim or execute in the creditor Plaza Bank its brief did to Edens referred the against debtor a of all of its claims settlement and release Here, the sеttlement primary guarantors of the debt. itself, says is that "Edens and what it speaks release
mutual Inc.) (Park (Edens Bank), Plaza Plaza Restaurant Borrower *** discharge each other hereby and forever Guarantors do release any demands, actions, claims, petitions or suits of any and all from unknown, whatsoever, beginning of known or from the kind whether limitation, AGREEMENT, including all to date this without time in result- been raised the lawsuit or claims that were or could have sale, attorney’s ing the claims aforementioned Thus, nothing for the plain it there was left fees and costs.” is that guarantor, guarantee defend. limited or finding Lastly, that "the trial court’s Bank contends any liability was without the offer of evidence lender rendered finding need not decide support the fact and conclusion law.” We issue, however, judgment in favor of Louis Demos that since be- properly upon entered based the settlement and mutual release creditor, primary tween the debtor and guarantors for the in the trial court affirmed.
Accordingly, judgment entered is Affirmed.
TULLY, J., concurs. GREIMAN, dissenting:
PRESIDING JUSTICE and, Working way through pages and credits our of debits entirety, by court defеnses considered trial their affirmative not decision, ap- majority opinion or this court as a basis for their (1) longer pears upon predicated the conclusion that there was (2) case guaranteed be any indebtedness to or settlement liability defen- primary obligors extinguished guaranty. dant under his written language ignored?
Can the clear guaranty instrument of (the Bank) upon This transaction is based a loan Edens Plaza Bank (SBA). guaranteed by which is the Small Business Administration guaranteed The loan further the defendant and others. majority Thе makes much of the fact that the SBA has large obligations sum to the Bank in satisfaction its loan under its agreement with and that the Bank has also received proceeds of equipment the sale of the debtor’s restaurant and fixtures in reduction of loan. defendant, guaranty however,
The instrument of executed has carefully been to be a part tailored of an SBA The transaction. guaranty expressly provides: Undersigned "The acknowledges and understands if the (SBA) into, Small Business Administration enters has entered
into, into, Guaranty Agreement or will enter with Lender or lending institution, guaranteeing portion other of Debtor’s liabilities, Undersigned agrees coguarantor it is not a right with SBA and shall have no of contribution SBA. Undersigned agrees liability The further that all hereunder shall notwithstanding payment by Guaranty continue SBA under its Agreement lending to the other institution.” It payment seems clear that the SBA was not intended liability affect the guaranty. defendant’s under the reason *10 apparent this is ample testimony concerning from the the relation- ship between the Bank the SBA. Under the of terms the SBA lending agreement, guarantors sums collected debtors or after payment by the SBA loan shall be remitted to the SBA in outlay.1 of reduction its by
The evidence also that the showed received the Bank upon the sale of the equipment restaurant not fixtures was the retained but rather that was remitted the to only $5,000 SBA and was retained the Bank. general liability guarantor is the limited
The
rule
that
is
greater
obligor
than
of
principal
and is
that
the
and that
if no
recovery
obligor,
guarantor
principal
could be had
the
the
(Hensler
(1992),
liability.
wоuld
v. Busey
also
absolved from
Bank
1269.)
920,
App.
Similarly,
231 Ill.
3d
general
596 N.E.2d
the
rule is
discharge,
or
principal obligation
satisfaction
extinction of the
guarantor’s
liability.
also terminates
the
v.
Capital
Palen
Cullom
(1987),
685,
Woodworking,
App.
154 Ill.
3d
213 however, leads to the language agreement, express The guaranty upon his remains liable that Demos conclusion Substantially agree similar to the Bank. despite payment the SBA release, seeking guarantor enforced ments have been "[wjhere law, guaranty unequivo is since, contract under Illinois according language interpreted terms it must be cal its language their used, parties meant what presumed for it is that the Exchange clearly v. National imports.” Acceptance Co. National 402, 264; Quoin Du (1968), also Ill. 243 N.E.2d see App. 101 2d (1983), 347. App. 115 3d 450 N.E.2d Daulby State Bank v. Ill. Moreover, addressing participation SBA-lender the few cases agreements relationship have created held that the SBA, creating no independent one the lender and the is between duties, legal parties. in third States v. Per- rights, or benefits United (E.D. (E.D. 1975), 22; kins Okla. 71 F.R.D. United States v. Martin 1972), Supp. Mich. F. defendant, neither the
Finally, as to the first issue raised testimony majority or trial court nor the examines considers owing principal obliga- interest still under to accrued due may question tion. While there be some as to amount of upon owing bal- interest due it continue accrue full —did ignores majority completely ance SBA after the its share? —the liability greatly this factor of the defendant’s which would increase the balance due. obligors or majority’s principal
The that release of the conclusion guarantors equally other acts as release of the defendant without Again, guaranty have been substance. the terms of instrument of ignored! guaranty power, in its allows the Bank "full uncon- discretion,” modify change any trolled "to or otherwise terms of release, compromise any "effect part or of the Liabilities” respect or settlement with therеto.” bar, case trial at court determined that release guarantors Again, language
other also released the defendant. may it is deal with the instrument controls and clear the Bank guarantor separate each in a manner and of one does that release necessarily not release the others. Cohen v. Continental Illinois (1993), Ill. App. Bank & Trust 3d 618 N.E.2d National Co. *11 1060; (1993), App. 248 Ill. 3d Brzozowski v. Northern Trust Co. N.E.2d 405. signed by
If express guaranty of the instrument of terms sur- enough, defendant are still not then we must look the events parties. I rounding the dismissal of count as to other construing In agreement, release and settlement the intention parties scope controls the and effect of the release and such intent language is discerned from the used circumstances of (N.D. (Village Grayhill, transaction. Fox River Grove v. Ill. 785.) 1992), Supp. 806 F. agree record indicates that both the parties’ ment litigation itself and the intentions envisioned continued between the Bank and agreed Demos. The order dismissal reflect ing only the settlement dismisses I the Bank’s count complaint, specifically maintaining pertaining the second count exclusively to only defendant. The reasonable construction of the recognition release parties would be did not intend original guaranty. to release defendant from his fairness, appears the majority attempting provide to be rough justice sort of since the defendant was the with the individual gain least up from the transaction largest ends with the personal liability. good was a in guaranteeing Defendant brother this obligation but will have to exercise more caution the future use his pen. fountain ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
THE OF OF PEOPLE THE STATE v. BRENDA THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant. (3rd Division)
First District No. 1 — 94—0797 Opinion Rehearing January filed December denied 1995.—