{
  "id": 3571356,
  "name": "ARCO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. MATTHEW WILLIAMS, a/k/a Matt Williams, Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arco Petroleum Products Co. v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1986-07-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 85\u20140137",
  "first_page": "218",
  "last_page": "221",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "146 Ill. App. 3d 218"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "730 F.2d 54",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        16055
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/730/0054-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 Ill. App. 233",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8499568
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/221/0233-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 N.E.2d 441",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1921,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "331 Ill. App. 395",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5053062
      ],
      "year": 1921,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/331/0395-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 402,
    "char_count": 6959,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.788,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.231081683874406e-08,
      "percentile": 0.38532806352802806
    },
    "sha256": "3170b68f357bbcaf1ec21b5def94b987e93268a9d25a1cdeb4be0217ff9edcff",
    "simhash": "1:acb652ef0499ddd8",
    "word_count": 1123
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:35:17.515999+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ARCO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. MATTHEW WILLIAMS, a/k/a Matt Williams, Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE LORENZ\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis forcible entry and detainer action was originally brought for possession of gasoline-service-station premises and for rent and holdover damages. The circuit court dismissed with prejudice the complaint of the lessor, ARCO, finding insufficient notice of termination to the lessee, Matthew Williams. An affirmative defense and counterclaim by Williams had previously been severed as not germane to the action. ARCO has appealed from the dismissal with prejudice of its action and Williams has cross-appealed from the severance of his affirmative defense and counterclaim.\nWe reverse and remand.\nThe lease at issue was entered into on May 24, 1983, and concerned gasoline-service-station premises located at 10301 South State Street in Chicago. Included in the lease were provisions: giving the lessor the right to immediately terminate the lease for criminal misconduct by the lessee relevant to the operation of the premises; giving the lessor the right to terminate the lease for trademark violations, including mislabeling or misbranding of motor fuels, by the lessee; and giving the lessor the right to terminate the lease for nonpayment of rent by giving the lessee not less than five-days prior written notice of termination.\nBy letter dated July 11, 1984, ARCO notified Williams that he was in default to ARCO in the amount of $6,695.66 for rent and other sums. ARCO demanded immediate payment and noted that failure to pay within five days would constitute a default under the lease.\nOn August 27, 1984, ARCO mailed to Williams by certified mail a notice of termination of the lease \u201cas of the close of business on August 31, 1984.\u201d Among the bases for termination cited in the letter were: criminal misconduct by the lessee, who allegedly attacked an ARCO delivery truck driver with an ax; sale of non-ARCO gasoline under ARCO\u2019s name; and nonpayment of the amount demanded in the July 11 letter as well as a subsequent indebtedness, totalling $20,275.\nThis action was commenced September 11, 1984, by a complaint seeking possession, rent, holdover damages for each additional day defendant retained possession after August 31, 1984, and attorney fees.\nWilliams filed a counterclaim and affirmative defense alleging, inter alia, that he was unable to pay the rent because ARCO had refused to deliver gasoline to Williams in violation of a lessee-dealer gasoline agreement executed simultaneously with the lease. These matters were severed by the circuit court, which found them not to be germane to the issue of possession.\nOn December 12, 1984, the circuit court denied ARCO\u2019s motion for summary judgment. The court then dismissed the action with prejudice, finding that no proper notice of termination had been made to Williams.\nDuring the pendency of this appeal (in April 1985) ARCO filed another forcible entry and detainer action against Williams, seeking possession only, as permitted by Illinois law. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 9 \u2014 116.) ARCO obtained a judgment for possession and on August 21, 1985, Williams was evicted. ARCO belatedly advised this court of those proceedings on December 31, 1985. On oral argument before this court, ARCO has conceded that in the event this cause is remanded to the circuit court on the remaining issue of damages, Williams\u2019 counterclaim and affirmative defense could be properly heard in the same action. Accordingly, the only issue we need determine is whether Williams was properly notified of the termination of the lease.\nThe circuit court found that to the extent the termination was based on Williams\u2019 rent arrearage ARCO was required to give Williams the five days\u2019 notice required by section 9 \u2014 209 of the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 9 \u2014 209). The court also found that the notice mailed August 27, with termination to be effective at the close of business on August 31, only constituted four days\u2019 notice because by statute the first day was not to be counted. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 1, par. 1012.) ARCO contends that this provision is inapplicable because the lease provides that notice shall be deemed served as of the date of mailing. ARCO also contends that it was not relying on the statutory five days\u2019 notice which provides a lessee with five days to cure, but on the lease provision granting the lessor a right to terminate upon at least five days\u2019 notice for nonpayment of rent. We do not reach all these issues, however, for we find that another basis for termination, Williams\u2019 alleged criminal actions, required no advance notice.\nAs we have noted, the lease gave ARCO the right to immediately terminate in the event of criminal conduct by Williams. The August 27 letter to Williams cited Williams\u2019 alleged criminal attack on an ARCO driver as a basis for termination. Under the terms of the lease, no additional notice was required.\nThe circuit court found that Williams was also relying on the statutory five days\u2019 notice for nonpayment of rent, and therefore had waived the right to immediate termination. But in this case ARCO clearly was relying on the five days\u2019 notice provision in the lease, rather than the statutory five days\u2019 notice. This is evident from the fact that the August 27 letter did not give Williams time to cure the default, as the statutory notice does, but informed him that termination would occur because of nonpayment of rent, thus tracking the lease\u2019s provisions for nonpayment of rent. Under these circumstances no waiver of ARCO\u2019s termination rights under the lease may be inferred. Bogden v. Lasswell (1947), 331 Ill. App. 395, 73 N.E.2d 441; Clark v. Stevens (1921), 221 Ill. App. 233.\nWilliams also contends that the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (15 U.S.C. sec. 2801 et seq. (1982), required a 90-day termination notice. Although such notice is generally required under the Act (15 U.S.C. sec. 2804(aX2) (1982)), such notice is not required where the requirement would be unreasonable. (15 U.S.C. sec. 2804(bXlXA) (1982).) Where, as here, it is alleged that the dealer has physically attacked an ARCO driver who was attempting to make a delivery to the dealer, immediate termination was reasonable. See Wisser Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp. (2d Cir. 1984), 730 F.2d 54.\nThe judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to reinstate ARCO\u2019s complaint as well as Williams\u2019 affirmative defense and counterclaim.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nSULLIVAN, P.J., and PINCHAM, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE LORENZ"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lord, Bissell & Brook, of Chicago (C. Joseph Yast and Hugh C. Griffin, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Harvey L. Walner & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago (Gregg I. Minkow, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ARCO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. MATTHEW WILLIAMS, a/k/a Matt Williams, Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 85\u20140137\nOpinion filed July 18,1986.\nLord, Bissell & Brook, of Chicago (C. Joseph Yast and Hugh C. Griffin, of counsel), for appellant.\nHarvey L. Walner & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago (Gregg I. Minkow, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0218-01",
  "first_page_order": 240,
  "last_page_order": 243
}