{ "id": 5470910, "name": "AMALGAMATED FINANCIAL CORPORATION et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ATLANTIS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Amalgamated Financial Corp. v. Atlantis, Inc.", "decision_date": "1982-03-29", "docket_number": "No. 81-234", "first_page": "379", "last_page": "382", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "105 Ill. App. 3d 379" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "152 N.E.2d 615", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "18 Ill. App. 2d 404", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5186861 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/18/0404-01" ] }, { "cite": "272 N.E.2d 708", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "133 Ill. App. 2d 755", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2473569 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/133/0755-01" ] }, { "cite": "516 F. Supp. 98", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 5601246 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "106" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/516/0098-01" ] }, { "cite": "275 N.E.2d 429", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1 Ill. App. 3d 890", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5314737, 5315394 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "897" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/1/0890-02", "/ill-app-3d/1/0890-01" ] }, { "cite": "409 N.E.2d 38", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "87 Ill. App. 3d 302", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3179448 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "304" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/87/0302-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 438, "char_count": 9132, "ocr_confidence": 0.908, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.481129274459237e-08, "percentile": 0.5179730555719658 }, "sha256": "049be665aef5229d34952842beb918a5f8b162f77543381b67566355e769157e", "simhash": "1:c6f242488fc1d5a6", "word_count": 1436 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:10:29.392087+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "AMALGAMATED FINANCIAL CORPORATION et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ATLANTIS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE McGLOON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAmalgamated Financial Corporation brought an action against Union Realty Mortgage Corporation for tortious interference with a contract between Amalgamated and Atlantis, Inc. The trial court entered judgment upon a jury verdict in favor of Amalgamated and against Union Realty. Union Realty now appeals.\nOn appeal, Union Realty argues that: (1) the jury\u2019s finding that a contract existed between Amalgamated and Atlantis was against the manifest weight of the evidence; (2) the jury\u2019s finding that Union Realty maliciously interfered with the alleged contract was against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (3) the trial court erred in denying its tendered instruction which would have advised the jury that interference with a contract is justified if it results from impersonal business reasons.\nAtlantis, Inc. (Atlantis), was a Wisconsin corporation engaged in the business of real estate development. Amalgamated Financial Corporation (Amalgamated) was a finance broker whose principal \u2018business was obtaining loan commitments from financial institutions for clients for a fee. Union Realty Mortgage Corporation (Union Realty) was a corporation engaged in the business of providing mortgage financing. Phillip Lind was the president and Carl Schaffner was the vice-president of Atlantis. Maurice Katz was an executive vice-president of Amalgamated. Martin Graff was an employee of Union Realty.\nIn July of 1973, Atlantis was in need of financing to build a nursing home in Merrill, Wisconsin. Atlantis\u2019 agent Carl Schaffner contacted Maurice Katz of Amalgamated to assist Atlantis in obtaining a loan commitment for the construction project from a willing lender. Katz explained to Schaffner that in exchange for obtaining a loan commitment from a lender for the project, he would require a commission from Atlantis in the amount of 3% of the total loan if the lender charged Atlantis points for making the loan, or 5% if the lender did not charge any points.\nKatz made several attempts to obtain a loan for Atlantis, but was unsuccessful until he contacted Martin Graff of Union Realty. Katz explained to Graff the nature of the construction project and the financing which would be required for such a project. He also explained to Graff the details of his commission fee agreement with Atlantis. After he studied the feasibility of Union Realty financing such a project, Graff telephoned Katz and asked him to arrange a meeting between him (Graff) and Atlantis at Union Realty\u2019s office. Katz arranged the meeting. Union Realty\u2019s representatives stated at that meeting that unless Atlantis agreed to certain terms, no loan commitment would be made. One of those terms required Atlantis to limit to 1% the amount of a commission fee to be paid Amalgamated. Atlantis and Union Realty entered into a loan agreement which contained the term.\nAmalgamated and Katz brought an action against Union Realty and Atlantis. Prior to trial, Amalgamated and Katz took a voluntary nonsuit as to Atlantis pursuant to a covenant not to sue. The complaint against Union Realty alleged that Union Realty knowingly and without justification induced Atlantis to breach its agreement with Amalgamated.\nThe jury found Union Realty guilty of wrongfully inducing a breach of contract between Atlantis and Amalgamated for commission fees. A judgment was entered upon the verdict and Amalgamated was awarded damages in the amount of $19,040. Union Realty appeals.\nThe essential elements of the tort of interference with contractual relations are (1) the existence of a valid and enforceable contract between plaintiff and another party; (2) defendant\u2019s knowledge of the existing contract; (3) an intentional and malicious inducement of a breach by defendant; (4) a subsequent breach by the other party to the contract; and (5) damages to plaintiff. (Mitchell v. Weiger (1980), 87 Ill. App. 3d 302, 304, 409 N.E.2d 38; Zamouski v. Gerrard (1971), 1 Ill. App. 3d 890, 897, 275 N.E.2d 429.) The first two issues raised by Union in this appeal involve the first and third elements of the tort.\nFirst, Union argues that the jury\u2019s finding that a contract existed between Amalgamated and Atlantis was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree. The trial court record is replete with evidence supporting the existence of a valid and enforceable contract.\nKatz testified that he told Atlantis\u2019 agent Carl Schaffner that if he, Katz, obtained a loan commitment from a lender, he would charge a commission fee in the amount of 2>% of the total loan if the lender charged Atlantis points, or 5% if the lender charged Atlantis no points. He further stated that Schaffner totally agreed to the terms of the commission fee contract. Although Schaffner did not testify, Atlantis\u2019 president Phillips Lind testified that there was a valid contract between Atlantis and Amalgamated. Additionally, Union Realty\u2019s own witness, Martin Graff, stated at trial that he was aware of the terms of the agreement between Atlantis and Amalgamated. Since both parties to the agreement stated that there was a contract and Union Realty\u2019s own witness admitted that there was an agreement, we cannot say that the jury\u2019s finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nSecond, Union Realty argues that the jury\u2019s finding that it maliciously induced a breach of the contract between Atlantis and Amalgamated was against the manifest weight of the evidence. In its brief, Union Realty misapprehends the meaning of the term \u201cmalice\u201d when used in the context of the tort involved herein. It is not necessary to prove that defendant acted with ill will, hostility or an intent to injure. (See Gorman Publishing Co. v. Stillman (N.D. Ill. 1980), 516 F. Supp. 98; Worrick v. Flora (1971), 133 Ill. App. 2d 755, 272 N.E.2d 708.) It is only necessary to show that the defendant acted intentionally and without just cause. (See W. P. Iverson & Co. v. Dunham Manufacturing Co. (1958), 18 Ill. App. 2d 404, 152 N.E.2d 615.) In the present case, Union Realty\u2019s interference clearly was intentional. Martin Graff testified that he was aware of the terms of the agreement between Atlantis and Amalgamated. Nevertheless, Union placed Atlantis in such a position that it could only obtain financing if it agreed to limit the commission to be paid Amalgamated to 1%. Since the interference was clearly intentional, the only remaining question is whether there was just cause for the interference.\nUnion Realty contends that its inducement of the breach of contract was \u201cjustifiable and grounded on sound business judgment.\u201d In essence, Union Realty argues that economic self-interest constitutes justification for inducing a breach of contract and is therefore a defense. The Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently addressed a similar argument.\nIn Gorman Publishing Co. v. Stillman (N.D. Ill. 1980), 516 F. Supp. 98, a publishing company and one of its employees, Stillman, entered into a contract not to compete. Stillman terminated his employment with the publishing company and began working with Chilton, a competitor of the publishing company, thereby violating his agreement not to compete. The publishing company sued Chilton for tortious interference with contractual relations. Chilton argued that its conduct was justified by its desire to secure the benefit of Stillman\u2019s abilities. The court rejected Chilton\u2019s argument, finding that \u201c[t]o hold otherwise would amount to holding that any interference with a contractual relationship is justified so long as it is beneficial to the interfering party.\u201d (516 F. Supp. 98, 106.) Similarly, we reject Union Realty\u2019s assertion that since its inducement of the breach of contract was grounded on sound business judgment, it was justified. In our opinion, it was incumbent on Union Realty to show something more than its economic self-interest as justification for inducing the breach of contract between Atlantis and Amalgamated.\nFinally, Union Realty argues that the trial court erred in refusing to submit to the jury a particular jury instruction. The tendered instruction read: \u201cThe jury are instructed that if you find Union Realty interfered with the contract of Atlantis and the plaintiff, Amalgamated then you must determine if such interference was justified. Interference is justified if it results from impersonal business reasons.\u201d In light of our holding that economic self-interest alone is not a defense to interference with contractual relations, we find that it was not error for the trial court to deny Union Realty\u2019s tendered instruction.\nFor the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.\nJudgment affirmed.\nGOLDBERG and O\u2019CONNOR, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE McGLOON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Hanson and Shire, of Chicago (Chris Goodman, of counsel), for appellants.", "Sloan and Connelly, of Chicago (Mark A. Moynihan, of counsel), for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "AMALGAMATED FINANCIAL CORPORATION et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ATLANTIS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 81-234\nOpinion filed March 29, 1982.\nHanson and Shire, of Chicago (Chris Goodman, of counsel), for appellants.\nSloan and Connelly, of Chicago (Mark A. Moynihan, of counsel), for appellees." }, "file_name": "0379-01", "first_page_order": 401, "last_page_order": 404 }