{
  "id": 3611987,
  "name": "AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff, v. JOSH BENTLEY et al., Defendants (Kenneth O. Munson, Counterplaintiff-Appellant; First Bank of Oak Park, Counterdefendant-Appellee)",
  "name_abbreviation": "American National Bank & Trust Co. v. Bentley",
  "decision_date": "1987-07-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 86-1471",
  "first_page": "27",
  "last_page": "30",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "159 Ill. App. 3d 27"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "489 N.E.2d 1182",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 Ill. App. 3d 107",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3497159
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "108-09"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/141/0107-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 Ill. 2d 537",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "446 N.E.2d 1214",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 Ill. App. 3d 179",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3626939
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/113/0179-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "468 N.E.2d 184",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 Ill. App. 3d 203",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3562991
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "206"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/127/0203-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "420 N.E.2d 865",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 Ill. App. 3d 1044",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3115008
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1049-50"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/95/1044-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 417,
    "char_count": 7218,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.789,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.021147979749158e-08,
      "percentile": 0.46473037617251045
    },
    "sha256": "b93d7f88689bcc3a8bd3834a503b01447a6f3c65475730dad555a90ebf19f5f2",
    "simhash": "1:1f9209fe0556e65c",
    "word_count": 1180
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:20.000303+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff, v. JOSH BENTLEY et al., Defendants (Kenneth O. Munson, Counterplaintiff-Appellant; First Bank of Oak Park, Counterdefendant-Appellee)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE O\u2019CONNOR\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant-counterplaintiff, Kenneth 0. Munson, appeals from the order of the circuit court of Cook County granting counterdefendant\u2019s, First Bank of Oak Park\u2019s, motion to dismiss Munson\u2019s claim against it. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.\nOn June 28, 1980, Munson, Josh Bentley and Dr. Shakeab Alshabkhoun formed Bartlett Square Partnership (Bartlett), for the purpose of acquiring, developing, financing, leasing, and managing certain real estate described in the partnership agreement. The agreement required, inter alia, all three partners\u2019 consent when borrowing money in the name of the partnership.\nPlaintiff, American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago (American), which is not a party to this appeal, loaned Bartlett $175,000 as evidenced by a promissory note dated December 1, 1982. Bentley, who requested the loan, delivered the note to American. The note was signed by Bentley and Alshabkhoun, whose signatures were guarantied by First Bank of Oak Park (First Bank).\nThe December 1, 1982, note became due and payable on March 1, 1983. On that date, the December 1 note was paid off by a renewal note in the principal amount of $175,000. The renewal note, which was signed by Bentley alone, contained no signature guaranty. The March 1 renewal note became due and payable on May 2, 1983. On that date, however, no payment was made.\nOn July 6, 1983, American filed a complaint in the circuit court of Cook County against Bentley, Alshabkhoun, Munson and Bartlett, to collect on the March 1, 1983, note. Munson\u2019s answer and counterclaim against Bentley asserted, among other things, that Bentley had obtained the loan for his own personal benefit and that he lacked the authority to obtain the loan on behalf of Bartlett. Alshabkhoun\u2019s answer stated substantially the same things as Munson\u2019s, but added that his signature on the December 1,1982, note was a forgery.\nOn March 15, 1985, American amended its complaint, adding First Bank as a defendant in count III. American alleged that First Bank had induced it to make the loan because of the signature guaranties on the original note dated December 1, 1982. In addition, Munson amended his counterclaim, adding First Bank as a counterdefendant in count V, and requesting damages resulting from First Bank\u2019s wrongful and erroneous signature guaranties.\nOn November 8, 1985, First Bank, pursuant to section 2 \u2014 615 of the Civil Practice Law (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 615), moved to dismiss the claims filed against it (the written motion incorrectly stated that it was being brought pursuant to both sections 2\u2014 615 and 2 \u2014 619). On January 14,1986, First Bank amended the motion.\nAfter hearing arguments, on May 2, 1986, the circuit court dismissed count III of American\u2019s complaint and count V of Munson\u2019s counterclaim, without granting leave to amend, on the ground that First Bank gave no guaranty as to the March 1, 1983, renewal note. Only Munson appeals the dismissal of his claim.\nMunson contends that First Bank\u2019s guaranty on the December 1, 1982, note wrongfully represented that Alshabkhoun\u2019s signature on that note was genuine. He argues that the verification of genuineness induced American to make the loan originally; therefore, First Bank must compensate him for the economic loss he sustained as a result of the wrongful authentication.\nFirst Bank argues that the only signature guaranty it gave was on the December 1 note. That note was paid by renewal on March 1, and only Bentley signed the later note which ultimately went into default. Therefore, First Bank asserts that its liability for the signature guaranty of December 1 was extinguished by the merger of the December note into the March note. In the alternative, First Bank argues that its liability was extinguished when the December note was paid off by the March note.\nMerger occurs when a contract supersedes and incorporates all or part of an earlier agreement. When a subsequent contract relates to the same subject matter and has the same terms as a previous contract, the actions of the parties are based on the provisions of the later executed document. Kraft v. No. 2 Galesburg Crown Finance Corp. (1981), 95 Ill. App. 3d 1044, 1049-50, 420 N.E.2d 865.\nWe need not determine whether the notes merged because we agree with First Bank\u2019s argument that the March note extinguished First Bank\u2019s liability as to the December note.\nMunson argues, however, that the March note was a renewal of the original note and that the March note was merely an extension of time with the original guaranty remaining in force. He speculates that American never would have given Bentley, on behalf of Bartlett, the original loan without the guaranty of Alshabkhoun\u2019s signature because he was the partner with the most money. American merely permitted Bentley alone to sign the renewal because it already had First Bank\u2019s guaranty that Alshabkhoun\u2019s signature was authentic.\nWe fail to find Munson\u2019s argument persuasive. The present case is unlike those situations where a debt itself is guarantied and any renewal of a promissory note is merely an extension of time with any prior guaranties remaining in force. In those situations, typically the note or the guaranty contains a clause which provides that in the event of any renewal or similar extension of time the guarantor is not released from liability on the debt. (See American National Bank v. Warner (1984), 127 Ill. App. 3d 203, 206, 468 N.E.2d 184; Bank of Homewood v. Sjo (1983), 113 Ill. App. 3d 179 , 182-83, 446 N.E.2d 1214, appeal denied (1983), 96 Ill. 2d 537.) In addition, the original note is usually stamped \u201cpaid\u201d or \u201cpaid by renewal.\u201d (See Heritage Bank v. Bruti (1986), 141 Ill. App. 3d 107, 108-09, 489 N.E.2d 1182.) In those situations, it is clear that all parties intend the guarantor to be liable upon execution of a renewal note.\nHere, however, all that First Bank guarantied was the authenticity of Alshabkhoun\u2019s signature on the original note; it had nothing to do with the renewal. It is clear that all parties intended First Bank to be liable only for a negligent signature verification on the note that it verified, the December note. But we fail to see how First Bank could be held liable on the new note, which did not contain Alshabkhoun\u2019s signature. First Bank\u2019s guaranty, therefore, was extinguished on March 1, 1983, when the renewal note was used to pay off the original.\nBecause we find that First Bank\u2019s liability was extinguished by the March note, we need not address the other issues raised by Munson.\nAccordingly, the order of the circuit court dismissing the claim against First Bank is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nCAMPBELL and BUCKLEY, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE O\u2019CONNOR"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert J. Trizna, of Trizna & Lepri, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Edward C. Fitzpatrick and Shelly L. Rice, both of Lord, Bissell & Brook, of Chicago, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff, v. JOSH BENTLEY et al., Defendants (Kenneth O. Munson, Counterplaintiff-Appellant; First Bank of Oak Park, Counterdefendant-Appellee).\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 86 \u2014 1471\nOpinion filed July 20, 1987.\nRehearing denied September 1, 1987.\nRobert J. Trizna, of Trizna & Lepri, of Chicago, for appellant.\nEdward C. Fitzpatrick and Shelly L. Rice, both of Lord, Bissell & Brook, of Chicago, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0027-01",
  "first_page_order": 49,
  "last_page_order": 52
}