International Supply Co. v. Campbell

50 Citing cases

  1. Grand Ridge Nat'l Bank v. Cullum

    2022 Ill. App. 2d 210436 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)

    Instead, a guaranty is "an agreement between a guarantor and a creditor wherein the guarantor agrees to be secondarily liable to the creditor for a debt or obligation owed to the creditor by a third party (the debtor)." International Supply Co. v. Campbell, 391 Ill.App.3d 439, 448-49 (2009). Thus, the provision in the October 2016 business loan agreement regarding cross-collateralization is consistent with our conclusion that QPRT 2 guaranteed the HELOC.

  2. Performance Food Grp. v. Ariva Hosp., Inc.

    440 Ill. Dec. 266 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)

    To the extent required, we review factual findings against the manifest weight of the evidence. International Supply Co. v. Campbell , 391 Ill. App. 3d 439, 447-48, 329 Ill.Dec. 887, 907 N.E.2d 478 (2009).¶ 12 Here, the language of the personal guarantee contemplates "a future course of dealing or a succession of credits" between PFG and Ariva.

  3. In re Clore

    547 B.R. 915 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2016)   Cited 6 times
    Stating that "as used in guaranty agreements, the terms ‘absolute’ and ‘unconditional’ are recognized terms of art designed to exclude any and all contractual conditions."

    A guaranty contract is an agreement between a guarantor and a creditor wherein the guarantor agrees to be secondarily liable to the creditor for a debt or obligation owed to the creditor by a third party. Int'l Supply Co. v. Campbell, 391 Ill.App.3d 439, 448–49, 907 N.E.2d 478, 329 Ill.Dec. 887 (2009). The obligation created by a guaranty is an independent obligation separate from the debt instrument between the lender and the borrower.

  4. First Am. Bank v. Poplar Creek, LLC

    2024 Ill. App. 230551 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    ¶ 46 The guarantors contend that, the UCC aside, principles of equity require First American's decision to retain the TIF note to qualify as satisfying the judgment. For support, the guarantors primarily rely on Heller v. Lee, 130 Ill.App.3d 701 (1985), and International Supply Co. v. Campbell, 391 Ill.App.3d 439 (2009). But in both Heller and International Supply, the courts determined that retaining collateral that had value and seeking to enforce the judgment constituted a windfall.

  5. Heartland Polymers Realty, Inc. v. Polychem Servs.

    2021 IL App (3d) 190581 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    Following our careful review, we agree with plaintiff-seller that the trial court's ruling was legally erroneous. ¶ 47 In most cases, "the standard of review [after] a bench trial is whether the order or judgment [wa]s against the manifest weight of the evidence." Reliable Fire Equipment Co. v. Arredondo, 2011 IL 111871, ¶ 12; See also International Supply Co. v. Campbell, 391 Ill. App. 3d 439, 447-48 (2009) (our court stating the trial court's factual findings after a bench trial must be given deference on appeal, such that a reversal is warranted only if they were against the manifest weight of the evidence). However, our review focuses on whether the trial court correctly excused, after a bench trial on plaintiff-seller's first amended complaint, defendant-purchaser and Hart's performance of their contractual duties under the promissory note and the guaranty.

  6. U.S. Bank N.A. v. tail Fund Algonquin Commons, L.L.C.

    2020 IL App (2d) 190283 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)

    These symmetric arrangements between the two phases fully demonstrate that, regardless of the timing of the execution of the Phase I loan documents and the Phase II loan documents, the transaction was intended to be considered as a single transaction. See International Supply Co. v. Campbell, 391 Ill. App. 3d 439, 448 (2009) (the court held that the four documents, entered into at the same time by the same parties and interrelated with documents referring to each other and describing some or all of the entire transaction, were intended to be read together as a single contract); cf. Dearborn Maple Venture, 2012 IL App (1st) 103513, ¶ 32 (three agreements constituted the parties' deal, but each agreement served a separate purpose to contribute to the overall deal between the parties). ¶ 39 Notably, the original Phase I borrowers and the original Phase II borrowers are not all the same parties. However, all the original Phase I and Phase II borrowers were related to Anderson's businesses, so that Anderson, and Anderson alone, signed all the documents on behalf of the Phase I and Phase II borrowers.

  7. Work Zone Safety, Inc. v. Crest Hill Land Dev., L.L.C.

    2015 Ill. App. 140088 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 8 times

    Rather, to warrant relief from a final judgment under section 2-1401, a petitioner must establish: " '(1) the existence of a meritorious defense or claim; (2) due diligence in presenting this defense or claim to the circuit court in the original action; and (3) due diligence in filing the section 2-1401 petition for relief.' " West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. 3RC Mechanical & Contracting Services, LLC, 2014 IL App (1st) 123213, ¶ 11 (quoting Smith v. Airoom, Inc., 114 Ill. 2d 209, 220-21 (1986)). Here, CHLD has not attempted to make the requisite showing under section 2-1401, and awarding relief from a final judgment based on the equities alone circumvents section 2-1401's requirements and undermines the finality of judgments. ¶ 19 CHLD relies on four cases which it maintains support the circuit court's equitable relief in this case: Star Charters v. Figueroa, 192 Ill. 2d 47 (2000); International Supply Co. v. Campbell, 391 Ill. App. 3d 439 (2009); Klier v. Siegel, 200 Ill. App. 3d 121 (1990); and Heller v. Lee, 130 Ill. App. 3d 701 (1985). These cases are distinguishable. ¶ 20 Star Charters and Klier stand for the proposition that supplementary proceedings to setoff or satisfy a judgment need not be filed within the 30-day period for filing postjudgment motions because such proceedings do not modify or attack the judgment.

  8. Hovde v. ISLA Dev.

    51 F.4th 771 (7th Cir. 2022)   Cited 2 times
    In Hovde v. ISLA Development LLC, 51 F.4th 771 (7th Cir. 2022), we used the language at issue here to shed light on the meaning of a different guaranty agreement.

    The language at issue here stands in contrast to more expansive language that courts frequently encounter in waivers, in which the language applies not only to defenses as to the obligation itself but also to defenses to liability or enforcement. See Intl. Supply Co. v. Campbell , 391 Ill.App.3d 439, 329 Ill.Dec. 887, 907 N.E.2d 478, 481–82 (2009) (guaranty waived "all legal and equitable defenses regarding enforcement of the personal guarantee"); FIMSA, Inc. v. Unicorp Fin. Corp. , 759 F. Supp. 1297, 1300 (N.D. Ill. 1991) ("the undersigned ... waives every defense, counterclaim or setoff ... to any action by FIMSA in enforcing this guaranty ); WEC 98C-3 LLC v. Saks, Inc. , 2022 WL 474204, *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 2022) (guaranty provided that "the liability and obligation of Guarantor ... shall not be subject to any ... defense"); Morris v. Columbia Nat. Bank of Chi. , 79 B.R. 777, 781 (N.D. Ill. 1987) (guaranty provided that "[e]ach of the undersigned waives every defense, counterclaim, or setoff which any of them may now have or hereafter may have to any action by the holder in enforcing this guaranty."); BA Mortg. & Intl. Realty , 706 F. Supp. at 1376 (guaranty waived "[a]ny defense ... that the Guarantors ... may or might have to its respective undertakings, liabilities and obligations hereunder, each and every such defense

  9. U.S. Cargo Direct, Inc. v. PNC Bank

    22 C 3925 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2023)

    As a preliminary matter, while the parties agree they had a contract, they disagree as to which documents together constitute the governing contract. See Int'l Supply Co. v. Campbell, 907 N.E.2d 478, 486 (Ill.App.Ct. 2009) (“The well-settled rule of contract law is that when two or more written documents are executed by the same contracting parties as part of the same transaction, those documents will be read and considered together as one contract encompassing the entire agreement between the parties, unless there is evidence that the parties intended for the documents to be read separately.”).

  10. Salsburg v. Invesco Capital Mgmt.

    21 C 6343 (N.D. Ill. May. 6, 2022)

    To state a claim of breach of contract under Illinois law, a plaintiff has to plead four elements: (1) existence of a contract; (2) the plaintiff's performance under the contract; (3) the defendant's breach of the contract; and (4) damages sustained as a result of the breach. Int'l Supply Co. v. Campbell, 391 Ill.App.3d 439, 450, 907 N.E.2d 478, 487 (2009). The plaintiffs allege that the ETF's prospectus is a contract that obligates Invesco to provide them with accurate information regarding the composition of the ETF.