{
  "id": 3514716,
  "name": "VENISE J. MIJATOVICH et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COLUMBIA SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION and LAND OF LINCOLN SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Indiv. and d/b/a Columbia Savings & Loan Association and the Land of Lincoln Federal Savings & Loan Association, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mijatovich v. Columbia Savings & Loan Ass'n",
  "decision_date": "1988-03-23",
  "docket_number": "No. 87\u20142583",
  "first_page": "313",
  "last_page": "317",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "168 Ill. App. 3d 313"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "427 N.E.2d 815",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "101 Ill. App. 3d 49",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3086479
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/101/0049-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "483 N.E.2d 1258",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 Ill. 2d 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3129539
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/108/0255-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 N.E.2d 45",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 Ill. App. 2d 57",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1588387
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/115/0057-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "490 N.E.2d 972",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 Ill. App. 3d 684",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3496629
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/141/0684-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "491 N.E.2d 795",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 Ill. App. 3d 703",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3452621
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/142/0703-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "339 N.E.2d 497",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Ill. App. 3d 1083",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2870786
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/33/1083-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "440 N.E.2d 194",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 Ill. App. 3d 24",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5450324
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/109/0024-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "492 N.E.2d 181",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 Ill. 2d 87",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5538683
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/112/0087-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 453,
    "char_count": 7619,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.772,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1452129788958811e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5799994517054855
    },
    "sha256": "403c50f19e78e795c6456b21d62d7918b29dbacfa13bcb96bcbde576df822c90",
    "simhash": "1:b784d4f3b1550d40",
    "word_count": 1220
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:02:50.417384+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "VENISE J. MIJATOVICH et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COLUMBIA SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION and LAND OF LINCOLN SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Indiv. and d/b/a Columbia Savings & Loan Association and the Land of Lincoln Federal Savings & Loan Association, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE McNAMARA\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiffs Venise and Zoran Mijatovich filed suit against defendant, individually and doing business as the Columbia Savings and Loan Association and the Lincoln Federal Savings and Loan Association (all one entity), for the allegedly wrongful removal of $500 from plaintiffs\u2019 bank account. The trial court struck count II, which sought punitive damages, of the third amended complaint pursuant to section 2 \u2014 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 615). Plaintiffs appeal from that order. After a trial without a jury, the trial court entered judgment for plaintiffs on count I and awarded $500 as compensatory damages, plus $253 interest.\nThe third amended complaint alleges that on April 15, 1978, plaintiffs opened a savings account with defendant and defendant therefore owed plaintiffs a fiduciary duty. On February 6, 1979, plaintiffs\u2019 account contained $1,355.90. On that day, defendant breached its fiduciary duty by \u201cwrongfully taking, converting and disposing of [$500 from plaintiffs\u2019 account] to its own use without any justifiable cause.\u201d On February 9, 1979, plaintiffs demanded the return of the money, but defendant refused.\nCount II alleges that defendant \u201cwantonly, oppressively and with a reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiffs, wrongfully took monies\u201d; that defendant \u201cmaliciously took the money\u201d without any cause \u201cwith the willful and wanton\u201d disregard of its fiduciary duty; that defendant \u201cacted with a wanton, willful and reckless disregard of\u201d plaintiffs\u2019 rights when it \u201coppressively and maliciously took the money\u201d and refused to return it; that defendant \u201cacted oppressively, maliciously, willfully and wantonly with a reckless disregard for the rights\u201d of plaintiffs; and that defendant was conscious of its \u201cwrongdoing *** [and] maliciously took the money belonging to plaintiffs.\u201d Count II alleges further that as a matter of public policy defendant \u201cshould be punished for such wrongful act and breach of its fiduciary duties in that such action of defendant is contrary to the public policy of the State of Illinois and such punishment will act as a deterrent in the future.\u201d Plaintiffs sought $500 as compensatory damages, and $200,500 as exemplary damages.\nAt trial on count I, the only witness was plaintiff Venise Mijatovich. According to a bystander\u2019s report, Venise testified that on December 2, 1978, she and her husband cashed his $350.85 paycheck in defendant\u2019s drive-through facility. On February 9, 1979, plaintiffs received a \u201ctemporary receipt\u201d form from defendant, indicating that $500 was being taken from their account. \u201cOn temporary receipt your account has been charged the above amount for returned check. The reason is the check amount is $350.85 and you were given $850.85.\u201d Later that day plaintiffs met with defendant\u2019s representatives, who told plaintiffs that they had been given an extra $500 when they cashed the paycheck. Defendant offered no evidence.\nOn May 27, 1987, the trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs on count I, for $500 plus $253 in past-due interest.\nOn June 25, 1987, plaintiffs filed a post-trial motion to modify the May 27, 1987, order by increasing the judgment with $200,000 in punitive damages on count I. Plaintiffs asserted that the dismissal of count II did not preclude an award of punitive damages on count I.\nOn July 17, 1987, the post-trial motion was \u201cdenied, a punitive damages count not being before this court.\u201d Plaintiffs appeal from the trial cotut order dated March 27, 1987, striking and dismissing count II, and the order denying a motion to reconsider that order, and the July 17, 1987, order denying the post-trial motion to modify count I to add punitive damages.\nPlaintiffs contend that as a matter of law the allegations in count II justify the imposition of punitive damages. Punitive damages are generally not recoverable for breach of contract except when the conduct causing the breach is also a tort for which punitive damages are recoverable and there are proper allegations of malice, wantonness or oppression. (Morrow v. L. A. Goldschmidt Association, Inc. (1986), 112 Ill. 2d 87, 492 N.E.2d 181.) A mere characterization of a breach of contract as \u201cwillful and wanton\u201d cannot change a suit for recovery for harm to a contract-like interest into a tort action. A breach of contract does not become a tort simply because the breach was willful and wanton. Morrow v. L. A. Goldschmidt Association, Inc. (1986), 112 Ill. 2d 87, 492 N.E.2d 181.\nHere, the relationship of the parties was that of a creditor and debtor, and no fiduciary duty exists. (Paskas v. Elini Federal Savings & Loan Association (1982), 109 Ill. App. 3d 24, 440 N.E.2d 194; Mid-City National Bank v. Mar Building Corp. (1975), 33 Ill. App. 3d 1083, 339 N.E.2d 497.) The complaint alleges nothing beyond the facts necessary to show the defendant debtor breached its contract by not returning the money. Stripped of terms such as \u201cwillful and wanton,\u201d the only facts alleged in count II are that defendant took the money and refused to return it. These facts support only a compensatory damages award under the breach of contract action and do not support exemplary damages. The mere addition of phrases such as \u201cwillful and wanton,\u201d or similar terms, is not sufficient to allege reckless conduct necessary to support the allowance of punitive damages. (Wait v. First Midwest Bank (1986), 142 Ill. App. 3d 703, 491 N.E.2d 795.) Even an allegation that a bank acted in bad faith in breaching an agreement with its customer is not sufficient to give rise to a punitive damages claim. (Carrico v. Delp (1986), 141 Ill. App. 3d 684, 490 N.E.2d 972.) Moreover, the complaint here fails to allege any damages beyond the compensation awarded. See Franks v. North Shore Farms, Inc. (1969), 115 Ill. App. 2d 57, 253 N.E.2d 45.\nThe complaint also fails to allege conversion, which requires more than mere obligation to pay money. (In re Thebus (1985), 108 Ill. 2d 255, 483 N.E.2d 1258.) The funds defendant held represented only a general debt of the debtor to the creditor.\nPlaintiffs argue that the dismissal of count II in the first and second amended complaints was not final and appealable. This issue is not before us on appeal. (107 Ill. 2d R. 304(a).) Furthermore, by choosing to file further amendments, plaintiffs abandoned the earlier complaint and waived any objection to an order sustaining a motion to strike that complaint. Knightsbridge Realty Partners, Ltd. 75 v. Pace (1981), 101 Ill. App. 3d 49, 427 N.E.2d 815.\nPlaintiffs contend further that the trial court erred in its May 27, 1987, order in denying plaintiffs\u2019 post-trial motion to modify the judgment by adding punitive damages. As we have stated, the complaint alleges no facts to support a punitive damages award. The complaint here recites facts supporting a breach of contract, but the absence of other factual allegations precludes any award of punitive damages.\nAccordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nRIZZI and FREEMAN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE McNAMARA"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Joseph J. Kozlowski & Associates, of Willow Springs, for appellants.",
      "Gomberg & Sharfman, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "VENISE J. MIJATOVICH et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COLUMBIA SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION and LAND OF LINCOLN SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Indiv. and d/b/a Columbia Savings & Loan Association and the Land of Lincoln Federal Savings & Loan Association, Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 87\u20142583\nOpinion filed March 23, 1988.\nJoseph J. Kozlowski & Associates, of Willow Springs, for appellants.\nGomberg & Sharfman, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0313-01",
  "first_page_order": 335,
  "last_page_order": 339
}