Contract & Conversion.

Jury Instructions-IL > Contract > Lease Contract and Conversion > Contract & Conversion

Reginald Jones vs. William McSpadden, 04 M1 136211

This was a 2006 verdict for defendant in a landlord/tenant dispute. The tenant claimed breach of contract under a lease agreement, conversion of his possession, abuse of process by use of police to effect an alleged unlawful eviction. The landlord countersued for rent, misuse and damage to premises. Verdict for Defendant-LL.

IPI 1.01 Preliminary Cautionary Instructions

The law regarding this case is contained in the instructions I will give to you. You must consider the Court’s instructions as a whole, not picking out some instructions and disregarding others.

It is your duty to resolve this case by determining the facts and following the law given in the instructions. Your verdict must not be based upon speculation, prejudice, or sympathy. Each party, whether a corporation, insurance company or an individual, should receive your same fair consideration.

You will decide what facts have been proven. Facts may be proven by evidence or reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. Evidence consists of the testimony of witnesses and of exhibits admitted by the court. You should consider all the evidence without regard to which party produced it. You may use common sense gained from your experiences in life in evaluating what you see and hear during trial.

You are the only judges of the credibility of the witnesses. You will decide the weight to be given to the testimony of each of them. In evaluating the credibility of a witness you may consider that witness’ ability and opportunity to observe, memory, manner, interest, bias, qualifications, experience, and any previous inconsistent statement or act by the witness concerning an issue important to the case.

An opening statement is what an attorney expects the evidence will be. A closing argument is given at the conclusion of the case and is a summary of what an attorney contends the evidence has shown. If any statement or argument of an attorney is not supported by the law or the evidence you should disregard that statement.

IPI 3.01 Rulings and Remarks of the Court

Now that the evidence has concluded, I will further instruct you as to the law and your duties. I have not meant to indicate any opinion as to the facts of this case by any of my rulings, remarks, or instructions.

IPI 3.04 Circumstantial Evidence

A fact may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence consists of the proof of facts or circumstances which leads to a reasonable inference of the existence of other facts sought to be established.

14.04 Duty to Refrain From Willful and Wanton Conduct—Defendant

It was the duty of the defendants, James Cunningham and the City of Chicago, before and at the time of the occurrence, to refrain from willful and wanton conduct which would endanger the safety of the plaintiffs and their property.

IPI 15.01 Proximate Cause

When I use the expression “proximate cause,” I mean any cause which, in natural or probable sequence, produced the injury or damages complained of.

14.01 Willful and Wanton Conduct—Definition

When I use the expression “willful and wanton conduct” I mean a course of action which shows actual or deliberate intention to harm or which, if not intentional, shows an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for a person’s own safety and the safety of others .

14.04 Duty to Refrain From Willful and Wanton Conduct—Defendant

As to the Plaintiff, Reginald Jones’ Claim,

The Plaintiff is Reginald Jones, Tenant

The Defendant is William McSpadden, Landlord

As to the Defendant, William McSpadden’s Counterclaim:

The Counter-Plaintiff is William McSpadden, the landlord.

The Counter-Defendant is Reginald Jones, the tenant.

It was the duty of the defendant and counter-defendant, before and at the time of the occurrence, to refrain from willful and wanton conduct which would endanger the safety of the plaintiff his property.

IPI 20.01.01 – ISSUES – WILFUL & WANTON/Modified

Each party to this suit claims to be entitled to injuries and damages from the other: the plaintiff, Reginald Jones, under his complaint, and the defendant, William McSpadden, under his counterclaim.

The plaintiff claims to have sustained injuries and damages, and that the defendant was willful and wanton in one or more of the following respects:

Improperly change locks on or install a fence around the plaintiff’s apartment without plaintiff’s knowledge or consent;

Improperly evicted plaintiff without lawful process or authority

Improperly removed personal property of the plaintiff from his apartment;

Failed to return plaintiff’s personal property to the plaintiff

Otherwise Improperly converted the plaintiff’s personal property

The plaintiff further claims that one or more of the foregoing was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries and damages.

defendant denies doing any of the things claimed by the plaintiff, denies he was willful and wanton in doing any of the things claimed by the plaintiff, and denies that any claimed act or omission on the part of the defendant was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ claimed injuries or damages. The defendant further deny that the plaintiff was injured and sustained damages to the extent claimed.

The defendant, William McSpadden, also sets up the following affirmative defenses and counterclaim:

That he is not responsible for the eviction of the plaintiff;

That if there was an eviction of the plaintiff, it was effectuated by a governmental agency and not as a result of the actions of the defendant;

That he made a reasonable attempt to protect the property of the plaintiff.

The Defendant counter-claims to have sustained injuries and damages, and that the plaintiff was willful and wanton in one or more of the following respects:

That the plaintiff damaged the premises, failed to pay rent, and otherwise violated the lease.

The Defendant further claims that one or more of the foregoing was a proximate cause of Defendant’s injuries and damages.

The plaintiff denies doing any of the things claimed by the Defendant , denies he was willful and wanton in doing any of the things claimed by the Defendant, and denies that any claimed act or omission on the part of the plaintiff was a proximate cause of the defendant’s claimed injuries or damages. The plaintiff further denies that the defendant was injured and sustained damages to the extent claimed.

IPI 21.01 – BURDEN OF PROOF

When I say that a party has the burden of proof on any proposition, or use the expression “if you find,” or “if you decide,” I mean you must be persuaded, considering all the evidence in the case, that the proposition on which he has the burden of proof is more probably true than not true.

IPI 21.02 – BURDEN – NO COMPARATIVE

The plaintiff/counter-plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:

First, that the defendant/counter-defendant acted or failed to act in one of the ways claimed by the plaintiff as stated to you in these instructions and that in so acting, or failing to act, the defendant acted was willful and wantonly;

Second, that the plaintiff suffered injuries or damages;

Third, that the willful and wanton conduct of the defendant was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries or damages;

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff.

On the other hand, if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of these propositions has not been proved, then your verdict should be for the defendant.

IPI 30.01 Measure of Damages

If you decide for any party on the issues joined here, you must then fix the amount of money which will reasonably and fairly compensate him for any of the following elements of damages proved by the evidence to have resulted from the willful and wanton conduct of the defendant, taking into consideration the nature, extent and duration of the injury.

The damage to property, determined by the fair market value of the property immediately before the occurrence

Emotional Distress experienced as a result of the injuries

Punitive damages as defined in these instructions

Rent

Security Deposit

Whether any of these elements of damages has been proved by the evidence is for you to determine.

IPI 35.01 Punitive/Exemplary Damages—Willful and Wanton Conduct

If you find that the defendant’s conduct was willful and wanton and proximately caused injury to the plaintiff, and if you believe that justice and the public good require it, you may, in addition to any other damages to which you find the plaintiff entitled, award an amount which will serve to punish the defendant and to deter the defendant and others from similar conduct.

*IPI 60.01 Violation of Statute, Ordinance, or Administrative Regulation

There was in force in the State of Illinois at the time of the occurrence in question a certain statute which provided that:

A landlord shall not make entry to property except in cases where entry is allowed by law, and in such cases he or she shall not enter with force, but in a peaceable manner.

If you decide that a party violated the statute on the occasion in question, then you may consider that fact together with all the other facts and circumstances in evidence in determining whether and to what extent, if any, a party was willful and wanton before and at the time of the occurrence.

IPI.36.01 In Absence of Liability—No Occasion to Consider Damages

If you decide for the defendant on the question of liability, you will have no occasion to consider the question of damages.

Definition of Abuse of Process – NON IPI (Coplea v. Bybee 290 Ill. App. 117 (1937)) Abuse of process involves the wilful and wanton institution of a civil or criminal action against another for the purpose of extorting or coercing the payment of a debt or the transfer of property.

IPI 700.00 CONTRACTS

IPI 700.12 Contracts—Definition of Substantial Performance

As to the contract action:

When I use the phrase “substantially performed,” I mean a performance in good faith of almost all that the contract required with only slight deviations. Such performance does not materially affect the benefits a party would have received from full performance.

IPI 700.19 Contracts—Breach of Contract—Burden of Proof on the Issues—No Dispute as to Contract Formation or Jury Finding in Favor of Contract Formation

The plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract.

The plaintiff now has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:

First, that plaintiff substantially performed all obligations required of him under the contract.

Second, that defendant failed to perform his obligations under the contract and breached said contract.

Third, that as a result of the breach of contract, plaintiff sustained damages.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff. On the other hand, if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of those propositions has not been proved, then your verdict should be for the defendant.

IPI 700.18 Contracts—Breach of Contract—Issues Made by Pleadings—One Defendant—No Dispute as to Contract Formation or Jury Finding in Favor of Contract Formation

The plaintiff and defendant have entered into a contract to rent a residential property. You must decide the following issues

[1] Plaintiff claims that he substantially performed all obligations required of him under that contract;

[2] Plaintiff further claims that defendant failed to perform his obligations under the contract and breached said contract in one or more of the following respects:

Improperly change locks on or install a fence around the plaintiff’s apartment without plaintiff’s knowledge or consent;

Improperly evicted plaintiff without lawful process or authority

Improperly removed personal property of the plaintiff from his apartment;

Failed to return plaintiff’s personal property to the plaintiff

Failed to return the $550.00 security deposit.

[3] The plaintiff further claims he has been damaged as a result of the breach of contract.

[4] The defendant denies he did any of the things claimed by the plaintiff, denies that plaintiff substantially performed all obligations required of him under the contract, and denies that he failed to perform his obligations under the contract.

[5] The defendant further denies that the plaintiff sustained damages.

[6] The defendant also sets up the following affirmative defenses

Defendant further claims that the Plaintiff failed to pay rent

The plaintiff damaged the leased premises

That he is not responsible for the eviction of the plaintiff;

That if there was an eviction of the plaintiff, it was effectuated by a governmental agency and as a result of the actions of the defendant;

That he made a reasonable attempt to protect the property of the plaintiff.

[7] The Defendant, William McSpadden, counterclaims that he has sustained injuries and damages, and that the plaintiff was willful and wanton in one or more of the following respects:

That the plaintiff damaged the premises, failed to pay rent, and otherwise violated the lease.

The Defendant further claims that one or more of the foregoing was a proximate cause of Defendant’s injuries and damages.

IPI 700.20 Contracts—Breach of Contract—Burden of Proof on the Issues—Affirmative Defenses Not Relating to Contract Enforcement—No Dispute as to Contract Formation or Jury Finding in Favor of Contract Formation

The plaintiff or counter-plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:

First, that plaintiff or counterplaintiff substantially performed all obligations required of him under the contract.

Second, that defendant failed to perform his obligations under the contract and breached said contract.

Third, as a result of the breach of contract, plaintiff sustained damages.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions required of the plaintiff has been proved and none of the defendant’s affirmative defenses has been proved, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, you find from your consideration of all the evidence, that any of the propositions the plaintiff is required to prove has not been proved then your verdict should be for the defendant.

NON-IPI Conversion Defined

As to the Conversion action:

The Plaintiff contends that the defendant converted his personal property. The issues for you to decide on the claim of Plaintiff against Defendant for conversion are as follows:

(1) Whether Defendant deprived Plaintiff of his personal property;

(2) Whether the deprivation was permanent or for an indefinite time;

(3) Whether Plaintiff had an immediate right to possess the personal property; and

(4) Whether the deprivation was without Plaintiff’s consent or authorization.

NON-IPI Present or Immediate Right of Possession

In order to recover, Plaintiff must either have had possession of the personal property at issue, or have had the right to its immediate possession. Plaintiff may have a right to possession even though Plaintiff does not have ownership or title to the property. If you find that Plaintiff did not have the right to possess the property, then your verdict must be for Defendant.

NON-IPI Personal Property Subject to Conversion

Only personal property may be subject to an action for conversion. The court has determined, and now instructs you, that the property involved in this case, which is the plaintiff’s personal belongings, is personal property.

NON-IPI Wrongful Taking

In order for Plaintiff to recover, Defendant’s conduct with regard to Plaintiff’s property must have constituted a wrongful taking. A wrongful taking does not require an actual manual taking, but there must be an actual interference with Plaintiff’s property, such as destruction, alteration, transfer, use, misdelivery, or failure to return, without Plaintiff’s consent or authorization.

NON-IPI Intent

The next issue for your determination is whether Defendant had the intent required to support a finding against him on Plaintiff’s claim of conversion. It is not necessary for Defendant to know that he was wrongfully depriving Plaintiff of his property. Defendant must only have intended to take or exercise authority over the property in question.

If you find that Defendant lawfully acquired possession of plaintiff’s property, then you must find that Plaintiff demanded that Defendant return the plaintiff’s property and that Defendant refused to do so. If Plaintiff failed to demand the return of the property rightfully acquired, your verdict must be for Defendant.

If, however, you find that Defendant acquired the plaintiff’s property wrongfully, it is not necessary for you to find that Plaintiff demanded its return.

B45.01 – FORMS OF VERDICT – NO COMPARATIVE

When you retire to the jury room you will first select a foreperson. He or she will preside during your deliberations.

Your verdict must be unanimous.

Forms of verdicts are supplied with these instructions. After you have reached your verdict, fill in and sign the appropriate form of verdict and return it to the court. Your verdict must be signed by each of you. You should not write or mark upon this or any of the other instructions given to you by the court.

On Reginald Jones’ Claim against William McSpadden:

If you find for the Plaintiff, Reginald Jones, and against the Defendant, William McSpadden, then you should use Verdict Form A.

If you find for the Defendant, William McSpadden and against the Plaintiff, Reginald Jones, then you should use Verdict Form B.

On William McSpadden’s counterclaim against Reginald Jones:

If you find for the Counter-Plaintiff, William McSpadden, and against the Counter-Defendant, Reginald Jones, then you should use Verdict Form C.

If you find for the Counter-Defendant, Reginald Jones and against the Counter-Plaintiff, William McSpadden, then you should use Verdict Form D.

*IPI B45.01.A – VERDICT FORM A

VERDICT FORM A

We, the jury, find for the Plaintiff Reginald Jones, and against the Defendant, William McSpadden. We assess the damages in the sum of $_____________, itemized as follows

Emotional Distress experienced as a result of the injuries $_________________

The damage to property $_________________

Punitive damages as defined in these instructions $_________________

Security Deposit $_________________

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————– —————————————————-

(Foreperson)

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

**B45.01.B Verdict Form B- COMPARATIVE

VERDICT FORM B

We, the jury, find for the Defendant, William McSpadden and against the Plaintiff, Reginald Jones.

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————– —————————————————-

(Foreperson)

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

*IPI4501.C

VERDICT FORM C

On William McSpadden’s counterclaim against Reginald Jones, we the jury find for the Counter-Plaintiff, William McSpadden and against the Counter-Defendant, Reginald Jones. We assess the damages in the sum of $_____________, itemized as follows

Damage to property $_________________

Rent $_________________

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————– —————————————————-

(Foreperson)

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

VERDICT FORM D

On William McSpadden’s counterclaim against Reginald Jones, we the jury find for the Counter-Defendant, Reginald Jones, and against the Counter-Plaintiff, William McSpadden

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————– —————————————————-

(Foreperson)

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–