Schwinder v. Austin Bank of Chicago
Illinois Appellate Court
348 Ill.App.3d 461, 809 N.E.2d 180, 284 Ill.Dec. 58 (2004)
- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
On June 21, 2000, Thomas F. Schwinder and Susan L. Londay (plaintiffs) offered to purchase a condominium unit from Austin Bank of Chicago and Marian Baginski (defendants). On July 5, 2000, Baginski accepted the plaintiffs’ offer. The parties entered a real estate contract and set a date for closing. When the closing date arrived, however, Baginski did not deliver the deed to the unit. Baginski was in the process of obtaining a divorce and was uncertain whether the divorce court would permit the sale of the unit. Baginski signed a second agreement, modifying the first, allowing the plaintiffs to move in until Baginski could secure a closing, provided that the plaintiffs paid $1,500 per month. The divorce court eventually approved the sale of the unit, but despite the plaintiffs’ efforts to set a closing date, Baginski refused to set a closing date. The plaintiffs brought suit, seeking specific performance of the contract. The trial court held that the contract, as modified by the new agreement, was valid and enforceable, and granted specific performance.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gordon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
