Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


February 6, 2003


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nan R. Nolan, United States Magistrate Judge


Plaintiff Diehl Road, LLC filed suit against defendant Arch Chemicals, Inc. alleging breach of an oral agreement to lease certain real property. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). This matter is now before the Court on Arch Chemicals' motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.


Diehl Road is the owner of property located at 940 E. Diehl Road, Naperville, Illinois (the "premises"). In 1997, Diehl Road leased the premises to Olin Corporation, which later assigned the lease to Arch Chemicals. The lease was set to terminate on July 31, 2000.

In November 1999, Arch Chemicals' sales and marketing coordinator, Karen Wilda, called Diehl Road's agent, attorney Michael J. Elliott, and asked whether Arch Chemicals could lease a smaller portion of its current space after the lease expired. Pl. Facts ¶ 1. Elliott informed Wilda that the space could be divided but it would be very costly and the unused space would be unmarketable. Id. ¶ 2. On December 16, 1999, Elliott sent Lorena O'Neill, a marketing manager at Arch Chemicals, a letter proposing to lease the full space for an additional three years. Arch Chemicals rejected the offer but O'Neill indicated that the company might be interested in leasing the space for a one-year term. Id. ¶¶ 3-4. On December 16 or 17, 1999, Elliott made a verbal proposal to O'Neill that Arch Chemicals lease the premises for one additional year at a price of $19.75 per square foot, gross basis, as is. After reviewing the verbal proposal with her boss that same day, O'Neill called Elliott and told him that "we've got a deal." Elliott offered to draft a confirming document, but O'Neill stated, "that's fine, if you want to, you don't have to. We've got a deal." Def. Facts ¶ 4. Nevertheless, Elliott prepared a document entitled "Amendment to Lease" which he faxed to Arch Chemicals on December 27, 1999. The Amendment to Lease incorporated the terms of the existing lease agreement and extended it for another one-year term from July 31, 2000 to July 31, 2001 at an annual rent of $89,625.50. Id. ¶ 6; Pl. Resp. to Facts ¶ 6.

After Elliott sent Arch Chemicals the lease in late December 1999, he ceased all efforts to lease the premises. However, Elliott never received a signed Amendment to Lease from Arch Chemicals. In February 2000, Elliott called O'Neill to ask about the status of the Amendment to Lease and O'Neill informed him that there had been a change in plans and that Arch Chemicals had decided to close its facility at the premises. As a result, Elliott put the premises back on the market and waited to "see what happened." Def. Facts ¶¶ 11-12. Several months later on August 17, 2000, Elliott wrote to Arch Chemicals and for the first time claimed that they had an oral lease agreement. Arch Chemicals had already vacated the premises by that time and responded that there was no binding lease agreement because it never signed the Amendment to Lease. Id. ¶¶ 13-14.

Diehl Road filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County seeking to recover damages it allegedly sustained due to Arch Chemicals' failure to honor its oral agreement to extend its lease for another year. On or about January 16, 2001, the case was removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Arch Chemicals now seeks summary judgment on the grounds that any alleged oral agreement to extend the lease is void under the statute of frauds.


Summary judgment is proper when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, a court must construe all facts and draw all reasonable and justifiable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

A. Statute of Frauds

The Illinois Statute of Frauds provides that a lease of realty for a term longer than one year must be confirmed in writing and signed by the party against whom it is to be enforced:

No action shall be brought to charge any person upon any contract for the sale of lands, tenements or hereditaments or any interest in or concerning them, for a longer term than one year, unless such contract or some memorandum or note thereof shall be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized in writing, signed by such party.
740 ILCS 80/2; GLS Development, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 944 F. Supp. 1384, 1393 (N.D. Ill. 1996); John O. Schofield, Inc. v. Nikkel, 314 Ill. App.3d 771, 784, 731 N.E.2d 915, 925 (2000). Under this statute, an oral contract is unenforceable unless it is "capable of full performance within one year, as measured from the date of its making." Respect Inc. v. Committee on Status of Women, 781 F. Supp. 1358, 1363 (N.D. Ill. 1992) (citing Sherwin v. Ault, 219 Ill. App.3d 213, 218, 579 N.E.2d 425, 428 (1991)). In this case, Diehl Road is seeking to enforce an oral agreement made in December 1999 to extend a lease until July 31, 2001. By its terms, this oral agreement could not be fulfilled within one year and is thus barred by the statute of frauds.

B. Exceptions to the Statute of Frauds

Diehl Road does not dispute that the statute of frauds would ordinarily bar the oral agreement in this case. However, Diehl Road claims that Arch Chemicals should not be allowed to assert the statute of frauds defense based on the theories of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.