election of remedies doctrine in Illinois

2010App. 3d 998, 1011 (2000) (holding that once the plaintiff expressly elected it wished to abandon its remedy of damages in favor of being excused from the contract, the plaintiffs election became final and irrevocable); Sluka v. Bielicki, 335 Ill. 202, 210 (1929) (“Where the doctrine of election of remedies applies!,] the bar arises as soon as the choice is made! ] and becomes full and absolute against the other remedy at the time of the filing of the petition, declaration!,] or claim”).

2010App. 3d 998, 1011 (2000) (holding that once the plaintiff expressly elected it wished to abandon its remedy of damages in favor of being excused from the contract, the plaintiff's election became final and irrevocable); Sluka v. Bielicki, 335 Ill. 202, 210 (1929) ("Where the doctrine of election of remedies applies[,] the bar arises as soon as the choice is made[] and becomes full and absolute against the other remedy at the time of the filing of the petition, declaration[,] or claim").

2018Lempa v. Finkel , 278 Ill.

2008“The doctrine of election of remedies is applicable only where a party has elected inconsistent remedies for the same injury or cause of action. [Citations.] The prosecution of one remedial right to judgment or decree constitutes an election barring subsequent prosecution of inconsistent remedial rights. [Citations.] For instance, a remedy based on the affirmance of a contract (e.g., damages) is generally inconsistent with one based on the disaffirmance of the contract (e.g., rescission). [Citations.] Thus, the election of either remedy is an abandonment of the other.” Lempa v. Finkel, 278 Ill

2023“This doctrine of election of remedies, does not prevent a party from seeking relief on inconsistent remedies unless a party has formerly manifested an intent to seek one remedy and the defendant makes a substantial change of position in reliance upon the intention or a possibility of double recovery exists.” Finke, 122 Ill.

2000App. 3d 1081, 1084 , 605 N.E.2d 1089, 1091 (1992) (“The election of remedies doctrine applies in cases of alternative pleading only where the opposing party has substantially altered his position in reliance on the plaintiffs choice”); Finke v. Woodard, 122 Ill.

2000The doctrine of election of remedies “should be confined to cases where (1) double compensation of the plaintiff is threatened or (2) the defendant has actually been misled by the plaintiffs conduct or (3) res adjudicata can be applied.” Faber, Coe & Gregg, Inc. v. First National Bank, 107 Ill.

2000App. 2d at 210 , 246 N.E.2d at 99 (declining to discuss, reconcile or distinguish the cases on this issue but, rather, falling back on the general rule and refusing to apply the doctrine of election of remedies).

2017Board of Directors of Bloomfield Club Recreation Ass’n v. The Hoffman Group, Inc., 186 Ill. 2d 419, 424 (1999).

2016Board of Directors of Bloomfield Club Recreation Ass’n. v. Hoffman Group, Inc., 186 Ill. 2d 419, 424 (1999).

2009Skinner and Oasis were in existence when the legislature drafted section 23 — 25(e). “ ‘Where statutes are enacted after judicial opinions are published, it must be presumed that the legislature acted with knowledge of the prevailing case law.’ ” Burrell v. Southern Truss, 176 Ill. 2d 171, 176 , 679 N.E.2d 1230, 1233 (1997), quoting Hickman, 163 Ill. 2d at 262 , 644 N.E.2d at 1153 .

2009Skinner and Oasis were in existence when the legislature drafted section 23 — 25(e). “ ‘Where statutes are enacted after judicial opinions are published, it must be presumed that the legislature acted with knowledge of the prevailing case law.’ ” Burrell v. Southern Truss, 176 Ill. 2d 171, 176 , 679 N.E.2d 1230, 1233 (1997), quoting Hickman, 163 Ill. 2d at 262 , 644 N.E.2d at 1153 .

2003See Copass v. Illinois Power Co. , 211 Ill.

2003See Copass v. Illinois Power Co., 211 Ill.

2000Election of Remedies § 5 (1971); Moran v. Union Bank, 352 Ill. 503, 508 , 186 N.E. 182, 184 (1933) (an election “once manifested by appropriate words or acts, is irrevocable”); Sluka v. Bielicki, 335 Ill. 202, 210 , 167 N.E. 90, 93 (1929) (“[wjhere the doctrine of election of remedies applies the bar arises as soon as the choice is made, and becomes full and absolute against the other remedy at the time of the filing of the petition, declaration or claim”).

2000Election of Remedies § 5 (1971); Moran v. Union Bank, 352 Ill. 503, 508 , 186 N.E. 182, 184 (1933) (an election “once manifested by appropriate words or acts, is irrevocable”); Sluka v. Bielicki, 335 Ill. 202, 210 , 167 N.E. 90, 93 (1929) (“[wjhere the doctrine of election of remedies applies the bar arises as soon as the choice is made, and becomes full and absolute against the other remedy at the time of the filing of the petition, declaration or claim”).

2000App. 57 (1884) ("a suit brought by the vendor against the vendee for the price of the goods with knowledge of the fraud by which the sale was effected, affirms the sale, and he can not thereafter rescind the same")), there is more recent authority indicating a shift towards the rule of the Second Restatement (see, e.g. , Gironda v. Paulson , 238 N.E.2d 1081 , 1084, 605 N.E.2d 1089, 1091 (1992) ("The election of remedies doctrine applies in cases of alternative pleading only where the opposing party has substantially altered his position in reliance on the plaintiff's choice"); Finke v. Woodard

2000App. 3d 1081, 1084 , 605 N.E.2d 1089, 1091 (1992) (“The election of remedies doctrine applies in cases of alternative pleading only where the opposing party has substantially altered his position in reliance on the plaintiffs choice”); Finke v. Woodard, 122 Ill.

1991Our supreme court stated in Marx that if two people are independently liable on a debt suing one will not bar suit against the other under the election of remedies doctrine unless there is a satisfaction in the initial action. ( 370 Ill. at 270 .) The court in Marx thus recognized that when two individuals have independent liability on the same demand, there is nothing inconsistent about suing both of them.

1973(People v. Marx, 370 Ill. 264, 270 (1938).) We hold that plaintiffs’ did not plead inconsistent theories and cannot, therefore, be subject to the doctrine of election of remedies.

2025See Kel-Keef Enterprises, Inc. v. Quality Components Corp., 316 Ill.

2023Hanson-Suminski v. Rohrman Midwest Motors, Inc., 386 Ill.

2021App. 3d 1010, 1015 (1991). “[W]hen two individuals have independent liability on the same demand, there is nothing inconsistent about suing both of them.” Id. ¶ 27 The doctrine of election of remedies does not bar recovery when a plaintiff files a claim against a corporate defendant in bankruptcy court and also files a civil action against individual defendants seeking the same relief because “the remedies are consistent and complimentary.” Kalabogias v. Georgou, 254 Ill.

2021App. 3d 1010, 1015 (1991). “[W]hen two individuals have independent liability on the same demand, there is nothing inconsistent about suing both of them.” Id. ¶ 27 The doctrine of election of remedies does not bar recovery when a plaintiff files a claim against a corporate defendant in bankruptcy court and also files a civil action against individual defendants seeking the same relief because “the remedies are consistent and complimentary.” Kalabogias v. Georgou, 254 Ill.

2021App. 3d 740, 750 (1993); see also Poswick v. Cutten, 258 A.D. 218, 220 (N.Y.

2021It also relies on Board of Trustees v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 173 Ill.

2021See Restatement (First) of Judgments, § 94 (1942) (“[T]he rendition of a judgment in an action against one of two or more persons liable for a *** breach of contract *** does not affect the claim against the other.”). “[I]f two people are independently liable on a debt suing one will not bar suit against the other under the election of remedies doctrine unless there is a satisfaction in the initial action.” Streams Condominium No. 3 Ass’n v. Bosgraf, 219 Ill.

2021App. 3d 1010, 1015 (1991). “[W]hen two individuals have independent liability on the same demand, there is nothing inconsistent about suing both of them.” Id. ¶ 27 The doctrine of election of remedies does not bar recovery when a plaintiff files a claim against a corporate defendant in bankruptcy court and also files a civil action against individual defendants seeking the same relief because “the remedies are consistent and complimentary.” Kalabogias v. Georgou, 254 Ill.

2020Rather, the trial court dismissed these claims on grounds that plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law in the form of money damages. ¶ 66 “A constructive trust is an equitable remedy imposed by a court to prevent the unjust enrichment of a party through actual fraud or breach of a fiduciary relationship.” In re Liquidation of Security Casualty Co., 127 Ill. 2d 434, 447 (1989).

2015See Douglas Theater Corp. v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 288 Ill.

2008Hadley v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 224 Ill. 2d 365, 370 , 864 N.E.2d 162, 165 (2007).

2008Hadley v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 224 Ill. 2d 365, 370 , 864 N.E.2d 162, 165 (2007).

2002S J S Investments, Ltd. v. 450 East Partnership, 232 Ill.App.3d 429, 432 , 174 Ill.Dec. 1 , 597 N.E.2d 1213, 1215 (1992).

2002S J S Investments, Ltd. v. 450 East Partnership, 232 Ill.App.3d 429, 432 , 174 Ill.Dec. 1 , 597 N.E.2d 1213, 1215 (1992).