Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Mijatovich v. Columbia Savings & Loan Ass'n
Citations: 522 N.E.2d 728; 168 Ill. App. 3d 313; 119 Ill. Dec. 66; 1988 Ill. App. LEXIS 350Docket: 87-2583
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; March 23, 1988; Illinois; State Appellate Court
Venise J. Mijatovich and Zoran Mijatovich (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against Columbia Savings and Loan Association and Land of Lincoln Savings and Loan Association (defendant), claiming wrongful removal of $500 from their bank account. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' request for punitive damages (count II) under section 2-615 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. After a non-jury trial, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on count I, awarding $500 in compensatory damages and $253 in interest. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant breached its fiduciary duty by incorrectly taking $500 from their account on February 6, 1979, without justification. They sought punitive damages of $200,500, arguing that the defendant's actions were malicious and contrary to public policy. The only witness at trial was plaintiff Venise, who testified about the circumstances surrounding the alleged wrongful charge. The trial court later denied the plaintiffs' post-trial motion to increase the judgment to include punitive damages. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of count II and the denial of their motion to reconsider and modify the judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions. Plaintiffs assert that count II's allegations warrant punitive damages; however, punitive damages for breach of contract are generally not recoverable unless the breach also constitutes a tort with allegations of malice or oppression. The case law cited (Morrow v. L.A. Goldschmidt Association, Inc.) emphasizes that simply labeling a breach as "willful and wanton" does not transform a contract dispute into a tort claim. The relationship between the parties is characterized as creditor-debtor, without any fiduciary duty (Paskas v. Illini Federal Savings and Loan Association; Mid-City National Bank v. Mar Building Corp.). The complaint merely states that the defendant failed to return the money, which supports a claim for compensatory damages but not for punitive damages, as mere allegations of "willful and wanton" conduct do not satisfy the criteria for reckless conduct. Previous rulings (Wait v. First Midwest Bank; Carrico v. Delp) indicate that bad faith in a breach does not justify punitive damages. The complaint also lacks allegations of damages beyond compensatory ones (Franks v. North Shore Farms, Inc.) and fails to establish conversion, which requires more than a mere debt obligation (In re Thebus). Plaintiffs argue that earlier dismissals were not final and appealable, but this issue is not under review. By amending their complaints, plaintiffs effectively abandoned prior claims. Lastly, the trial court's denial of the motion to modify the judgment for punitive damages is upheld because the complaint does not support such an award. The circuit court's judgment is affirmed.