APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION
510 N.E.2d 1119, 157 Ill. App. 3d 686, 110 Ill. Dec. 88 1987.IL.890
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Myron Gomberg, Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE LORENZ delivered the opinion of the court. PINCHAM, J., concurs. PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN, Dissenting.
DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE LORENZ
This appeal arises from an order entered by the circuit court of Cook County on October 15, 1985, dismissing both counts of plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff only appeals the dismissal of count I, which alleges a breach of a contract of permanent employment.
The sole contention before us is that the circuit court erred in finding that the plaintiff's pleadings failed to establish consideration for a contract of permanent employment.
We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Pertinent to our Disposition are the following facts. Plaintiff was employed by defendant in April 1980. In February 1983 defendant's president orally promised to make her a vice-president if she would obtain an MBA degree. And, at that time she was told that she was a "permanent employee." On March 1, 1983, plaintiff was appointed to defendant's "President Council." In September 1983 she began an executive MBA program and defendant paid one-half of her tuition. Plaintiff was terminated by defendant on October 12, 1984, without cause or reason.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss counts I and II of plaintiff's complaint pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2-615) for failure to state a cause of action. Alternatively, defendant sought dismissal of count I pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2-619), alleging the Statute of Frauds (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 59, par. 1) rendered the oral contract unenforceable. The section 2-619 motion was unsupported by affidavit and asked the circuit court to take judicial notice of the proposition that it takes longer than one year to obtain an MBA. Judicial notice was not taken and the section 2-619 motion was implicitly denied when the section 2-615 motion was granted as to both counts. The trial court held that count I failed to state a cause of action for lack of consideration because plaintiff suffered no detriment such as would create an enforceable contract of permanent employment. Plaintiff appeals the decision of the lower court with respect to count I only.
A motion to dismiss accepts as true all well-pleaded facts and should be granted only where it clearly appears that no set of facts can be proved which will entitle plaintiff to recover. (Willard v. Northwest National Bank (1985), 137 Ill. App. 3d 255, 484 N.E.2d 823.) In reviewing such motions we must construe pleadings liberally to see that substantial Justice is done between the parties. People ex rel. Scott v. College Hills Corp. (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 138, 435 N.E.2d 463.
Here, the trial court found that both counts I and II failed to state a cause of action. After that finding was entered plaintiff's counsel asked if that order ...