Labovitz v. Dolan, 189 Ill. App. 3d 403 (1st Dist. 1989) is a case that was heard by the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division. The case involved a dispute between Joel Labovitz and a group of investors, who were referred to as the “Labovitz Group,” and Charles F. Dolan and a group of investors, who were referred to as the “Dolan Group.”
The dispute centered around a real estate development project in Chicago. The Labovitz Group had entered into a joint venture agreement with the Dolan Group to develop a commercial real estate property in Chicago. The agreement specified that the parties would share equally in the profits and losses of the project. However, after the project was completed, the Dolan Group refused to distribute any profits to the Labovitz Group, claiming that there were no profits to distribute.
The Labovitz Group then filed a lawsuit against the Dolan Group, alleging breach of contract and fraud. The trial court ruled in favor of the Dolan Group, finding that there were no profits to distribute and that the Labovitz Group had failed to prove their fraud claims.
The Labovitz Group appealed the trial court’s decision to the Appellate Court of Illinois. The appellate court overturned the trial court’s decision, finding that the Dolan Group had breached the joint venture agreement and that the Labovitz Group was entitled to an equal share of the profits. The appellate court also found that the Dolan Group had committed fraud by misrepresenting the financial condition of the project.
One of the key issues in this case was the interpretation of the joint venture agreement. The appellate court found that the agreement was clear and unambiguous in its terms and that the Dolan Group had breached the agreement by failing to distribute profits to the Labovitz Group.
Another important issue in this case was the question of fraud. The appellate court found that the Dolan Group had made misrepresentations about the financial condition of the project, which constituted fraud under Illinois law.
Labovitz highlights the importance of clear and unambiguous contracts in business transactions. It also underscores the importance of honesty and integrity in business dealings and the legal remedies that are available to parties who have been wronged. The case also highlights that controlling partners or owners owe very high fiduciary duties to other limited partners. shareholders or LLC members. The decision relies upon what has become the most celebrated pronouncement characterizing the fiduciary relationship that exists among partners, Chief Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo stated for the court in the case of Meinhard v. Salmon (1928), 249 N.Y. 458, 463–64 that:
“… copartners, owe to one another … the duty of the finest loyalty. Many forms of conduct permissible in a workaday world for those acting at arm’s length, are forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties. A trustee is held to something stricter than the morals of the market place. Not honesty alone but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior. As to this there has developed a tradition that is unbending and inveterate. Uncompromising rigidity has been the attitude of courts of equity when petitioned to undermine the rule of undivided loyalty by the ‘disintegrating erosion’ of particular exceptions. [Citation] Only thus has the level of conduct for fiduciaries been kept at a level higher than that trodden by the crowd. It will not consciously be lowered by any judgment of this court.”
The case found that Dolan’s discretion to withhold cash was not absolute; it was limited by an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing implicit in every Illinois contract and by his fiduciary duty to his partners. “Good faith between contracting parties requires that a party vested with contractual discretion must exercise his discretion reasonably and may not do so arbitrarily or capriciously.” The Court held:
It is also clear, however, that despite having such broad discretion, Dolan still owed his limited partners a fiduciary duty, which necessarily encompasses the duty of exercising good faith, honesty, and fairness in his dealings with them and the funds of the partnership. (See: Couri, 95 Ill.2d 91, 69 Ill.Dec. 117, 447 N.E.2d 334; Mandell, 86 Ill.App.3d 437, 41 Ill.Dec. 323, 407 N.E.2d 821; Dayan, 125 Ill.App.3d 972, 81 Ill.Dec. 156, 466 N.E.2d 958; Foster Enterprises, 97 Ill.App.3d 22, 52 Ill.Dec. 303, 421 N.E.2d 1375.) It is no answer to the claim that plaintiffs make in this case that partners have the right to establish among themselves their rights, duties and obligations, as though the exercise of that right releases, waives or delimits somehow, the high fiduciary duty owed to them by the general partner—a gloss we do not find anywhere in our law. On the contrary, the fiduciary duty exists concurrently with the obligations set forth in the partnership agreement whether or not expressed therein. Indeed, at least one of the authorities relied upon by defendants is clear that although “partners are free to vary many aspects of their relationship inter se, … they are not free to destroy its fiduciary character.” Saballus, 122 Ill.App.3d at 116, 77 Ill.Dec. 451, 460 N.E.2d 755.
Thus, the language in the Articles standing alone does not deprive plaintiffs of the trial they seek against Dolan for breach of fiduciary *413 duty.