{ "id": 2645872, "name": "ALBERT A. WOLL et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HERMAN L. LOEB, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Woll v. Loeb", "decision_date": "1989-07-06", "docket_number": "No. 5-87-0161", "first_page": "497", "last_page": "502", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "185 Ill. App. 3d 497" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "431 N.E.2d 738", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "743" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "103 Ill. App. 3d 423", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5479150 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "429" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/103/0423-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 N.E.2d 375", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "377-78" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "383 Ill. 110", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2487232 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "114-15" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/383/0110-01" ] }, { "cite": "431 N.E.2d 1214", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1217" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "103 Ill. App. 3d 797", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5479917 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "801" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/103/0797-01" ] }, { "cite": "243 N.E.2d 264", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "266" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "101 Ill. App. 2d 396", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2901997 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "401" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/101/0396-01" ] }, { "cite": "479 N.E.2d 350", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "353" }, { "page": "353" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "133 Ill. App. 3d 704", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3529808 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "709" }, { "page": "709" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/133/0704-01" ] }, { "cite": "371 N.E.2d 294", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "297" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "56 Ill. App. 3d 229", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3413612 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "232" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/56/0229-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 567, "char_count": 9942, "ocr_confidence": 0.775, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.436057418262789e-08, "percentile": 0.27804381645416393 }, "sha256": "9da8b0911f9cebf350f30b975f1dd5d8de68e8368764956fb3e934b6ee819652", "simhash": "1:ca3ff818750af781", "word_count": 1621 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:15:46.579667+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ALBERT A. WOLL et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HERMAN L. LOEB, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE RARICK\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiffs, Albert A. Woll (Woll) and Woll Enterprises, Inc., appeal from the judgment entered in their favor by the circuit court of Clinton County on their complaint seeking money judgments and foreclosure of operator\u2019s liens against defendant, Herman L. Loeb (Loeb).\nWoll and Loeb, along with others, are owners of undivided fractional working interests in various oil and gas leases. As mining partners, each is required to pay a proportional share of the operating expenses for the wells on the leases. These expenses include overhead and supervision costs and third-party charges or supply, repair and maintenance costs. At some point in the parties\u2019 relationship, Woll took over the operation of 10 separate groups of the oil and gas leases, known as the \u201cFamily Leases.\u201d Woll began charging $75 per month per well for overhead and supervision in connection with the \u201cFamily Leases.\u201d Woll subsequently increased this charge to $100 per month per well, then to $1,000 per month, and finally to $2,400 per month once Woll\u2019s son entered the business. Loeb objected to these increases, and as of July 1983, began paying only his share of the third-party charges. Some of Loeb\u2019s payments included the notation \u201cpayment in full\u201d; others did not. Woll refused to cash any of Loeb\u2019s checks once the dispute arose between the two. Loeb eventually stopped making all payments, which in turn resulted in the instant suit. Loeb admitted to owing certain portions of the amounts sued upon, these being his share of the third-party expenses. The trial court granted plaintiffs a partial summary judgment and awarded them $53,440.96. Loeb appealed, but his appeal was dismissed as premature. Following a bench trial, the court found $75 per month per producing well to be a reasonable charge for overhead and supervision costs and entered a money judgment against Loeb for an additional $95,790.42 plus court costs after granting Loeb a $5,000 credit for a previous payment. The trial court denied plaintiffs\u2019 claim for prejudgment interest.\nPlaintiffs argue on appeal the trial court erred in denying prejudgment interest, in giving Loeb credit for a $5,000 payment, and in calculating the award itself.\nWith respect to the trial court\u2019s error in calculating the amount of the award, Woll raises no issue as to the method of determining the amount owed, only as to the actual amount. Woll believes the court\u2019s finding as to the number of producing wells, when plaintiffs presented the only evidence as to the number of wells operated, was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Woll contends the court failed to include two wells and reduced the operating time for an additional well, thereby reducing plaintiffs\u2019 recovery by $2,325 on this aspect alone. Woll also believes the court made a transpositional error and incorrectly reduced the operating expenses for 1983 as established by plaintiffs\u2019 exhibits by $10,000. We agree in part and disagree in part with Woll\u2019s contentions. It is quite clear the trial court inadvertently reduced the 1983 operating expenses by $10,000. The trial court expressly accepted in its order the summaries of third-party charges as listed on one of plaintiffs\u2019 exhibits for the period July 1983 through February 1985. The figure for 1983 incorporated into the court\u2019s order, $32,972.77, is exactly $10,000 less than that listed on plaintiffs\u2019 exhibit while the 1984 figure is the same on both. Loeb argues the reduced operating expense figure for 1983 incorporates credits for payments he made during the year prior to the parties\u2019 dispute. Loeb, however, cited no evidence for his claim, and we have no duty to find it for him. (See 47th & State Currency Exchange, Inc. v. B. Coleman Corp. (1977), 56 Ill. App. 3d 229, 232, 371 N.E.2d 294, 297.) The only clear evidence in the record indicates the third-party expenses for 1983 were indeed $42,972.77. We therefore must remand the judgment to correct this error. We do not, however, agree with plaintiffs\u2019 contention that the court\u2019s finding as to the number of producing wells is against the manifest weight of the evidence. The findings of a trial court in a nonjury case are not to be disturbed on review if there is any evidence in the record to support these findings. (See Briggs v. Gaddis (1985), 133 Ill. App. 3d 704, 709, 479 N.E.2d 350, 353.) Plaintiffs\u2019 testimony as to the number of operating wells often was vague and uncertain. Woll testified he rarely was on the leases himself. Woll did testify, however, that plaintiffs operated only one well on the \u201cSchomacher Lease.\u201d The evidence further revealed one well on the \u201cLeighty Lease\u201d was producing only from July 1983 to December 1983. Woll later tried to refute or explain his testimony and this evidence, but it was for the trial court to resolve the matters and weigh the credibility of the parties. We choose not to interfere with the court\u2019s decision. We do note, however, the trial court did make a calculation error with respect to the \u201cClinton County Group\u201d of leases, and accordingly, we remand for correction of this error also. According to the court\u2019s order, the number of producing wells and overhead and supervision expenses for the \u201cClinton County Group\u201d is listed as:\nThe error occurs in the calculations for 1984. One well on each of the \u201cDeters\u201d and \u201cMcCabe\u201d leases was abandoned in February, and the well on the Schomacher lease was abandoned in September. The total number of producing wells for 1984 should have read:\n13 for 1 mo. (or in the reverse) 10 for 12 mos.\n11 for 8 mos. 1 for 9 mos.\n10 for 3 mos. 2 for 1 mo.\nresulting in a total of 131 x $75 or $9,825. Completing the rest of the chart, Loeb\u2019s share of overhead and supervision for this group of leases is $6,620.92:\nThis in turn results in a new total of overhead and supervision expense on the \u201cFamily Leases\u201d of $16,265.68. Adjusting all of the figures accordingly, including the $10,000 1983 third-party expense correction, the total judgment should be $105,828.14 plus court costs in favor of plaintiffs.\nOriginal Order\n$138,003.42 (Loeb\u2019s share of third-party expenses)\n+ 16,227.96 (Loeb\u2019s share of overhead & supervision)\n- 5,000.00 (Credit (payment 8/9/83))\n- 53,440,96 (partial summary judgment payment) $95,790.42 plus court costs\nCorrected $148,003.42 + 16,265.68\n- 5,000.00\n- 53,440.96\n$105,828.14\nPlaintiffs contend, however, Loeb is not entitled to a credit of $5,000 toward this judgment for his payment made on August 9, 1983. Plaintiffs argue Loeb\u2019s August payment pertained to an earlier month\u2019s charges which were not included in the present controversy. While it is true that Loeb did not affirmatively plead the $5,000 payment (see National Acceptance Co. v. Exchange National Bank (1968), 101 Ill. App. 2d 396, 401, 243 N.E.2d 264, 266), plaintiffs\u2019 own exhibits reflect receipt of this $5,000 payment and lack of credit given. Plaintiffs\u2019 bookkeeper acknowledged she had not given Loeb credit for the $5,000 payment although she did testify on redirect the payment may have been attributable to an earlier invoice. Plaintiffs and Loeb, however, had an ongoing relationship with a constant flow of expense and income items. WTiether or not Loeb was entitled to this credit of $5,000 toward the amount in controversy here became a question of fact for the trial court to determine and one which we will not disturb on review. See Briggs, 133 Ill. App. 3d at 709, 479 N.E.2d at 353.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 final argument on appeal is that the trial court should have awarded them prejudgment interest on the unpaid third-party charges. Plaintiffs believe Loeb\u2019s refusal to pay these undisputed amounts was unreasonable and vexatious and done solely to gain an advantage in the parties\u2019 dispute over the supervisory and overhead charges. Plaintiffs point to the fact that only 10.6% of the total amount was in dispute, yet Loeb withheld all amounts due or placed \u201cpayment in full\u201d notations on checks drawn for undisputed amounts.\nWhether a delay in payment is unreasonable and vexatious is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court. We sitting as a court of review will not disturb that determination unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (Charles Selon & Associates, Inc. v. Estate of Aisenberg (1981), 103 Ill. App. 3d 797, 801, 431 N.E.2d 1214, 1217.) Such is not the case here. Plaintiffs, without consulting Loeb, arbitrarily increased overhead and supervisory charges from $100 per month to $2,400 per month with little relation to the actual overhead and supervision costs incurred. Loeb rightfully objected to such charges (see Kinne v. Duncan (1943), 383 Ill. 110, 114-15, 48 N.E.2d 375, 377-78), thereby creating a legitimate controversy between the parties. An honest dispute as to the existence of a legal obligation will not result in an unreasonable and vexatious delay triggering recovery of prejudgment interest. (See Emmenegger Construction Co. v. King (1982), 103 Ill. App. 3d 423, 429, 431 N.E.2d 738, 743.) While Loeb may have placed \u201cpayment in full\u201d notations on many of his tendered payments, plaintiffs refused to cash even those checks for undisputed third-party charges which did not contain such notations. Loeb did not refuse, to pay; plaintiffs refused to accept. The trial court properly denied prejudgment interest in this instance.\nFor the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Clinton County but remand for modification of the dollar amount in accordance with this opinion.\nAffirmed in part; remanded with directions.\nCHAPMAN and HOWERTON, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE RARICK" } ], "attorneys": [ "L. James Hanson and Warren N. Loar IV, both of Musick & Mitchell, P.C., of Mt. Vernon, for appellants.", "C. Michael Witters, of Mt. Carmel, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ALBERT A. WOLL et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HERMAN L. LOEB, Defendant-Appellee.\nFifth District\nNo. 5-87-0161\nOpinion filed July 6, 1989.\nL. James Hanson and Warren N. Loar IV, both of Musick & Mitchell, P.C., of Mt. Vernon, for appellants.\nC. Michael Witters, of Mt. Carmel, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0497-01", "first_page_order": 523, "last_page_order": 528 }