Syniuk v. IBY Transport, Inc.

2024 IL App (1st) 231427-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: July 17, 2024
• Docket: 1-23-1427
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2024 IL App (1st) 231427-U No. 1-23-1427 Order filed July 17, 2024 Third Division

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ OLEKSII SYNIUK, d/b/a WOLF TRANS LINES, INC., ) Appeal from the and VITALII KOZHUSHKO, d/b/a KVK TRANSPORT, ) Circuit Court of INC, ) Cook County. ) Plaintiffs and Counterdefendants-Appellants, ) ) v. ) No. 20 L 7355 ) IBY TRANSPORT, INC., ) Honorable ) Maura Slattery Boyle, Defendant and Counterplaintiff-Appellee. ) Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE LAMPKIN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices D.B. Walker and R. Van Tine concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The trial court’s ruling that the truck drivers breached their oral contract with the transportation company, and the trial court’s damage award in favor of the transportation company were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶2 Plaintiffs Oleksii Syniuk, d/b/a Wolf Trans Lines, Inc., and Vitalii Kozhushko, d/b/a KVK

Transport Inc., sued defendant IBY Transport, Inc. to enforce an oral contract for the purchase of

a truck, trailer, and replacement engine. Defendant then filed a counterclaim against plaintiffs for, No. 1-23-1427

inter alia, breach of the same oral agreement. After a bench trial, the trial court ruled against

plaintiffs on their claim and in favor of defendant on its counterclaim, and awarded damages to

defendant.

¶3 On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the trial court erroneously found that they breached the oral

contract because they substantially performed their obligations under that agreement. Plaintiffs

also argue that the trial court misapplied the law by denying them credit for the money they had

paid toward the purchase of the truck and engine.

¶4 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.1

¶5 I. BACKGROUND

¶6 The parties do not dispute that, in May 2018, each plaintiff executed an identical written

contract with defendant for truck and hauling services. The written contracts provided that

plaintiffs were paid 90% on all the loads they transported under the agreements, which mandated

that they provide their own equipment. Also in May 2018, plaintiffs made an oral contract with

defendant where defendant would purchase a trailer and plaintiffs would buy a truck and the trailer

from defendant over time. This oral contract was later modified to include the sale of a new engine

for the truck.

¶7 Relevant to this appeal, plaintiffs sued defendant, alleging that (1) defendant breached the

parties’ oral contract by failing to deliver the truck with the new engine for which plaintiffs had

allegedly made payments, and (2) defendant wrongfully took possession and ownership of the

truck by taking it away and selling it.

1 In adherence with the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352(a) (eff. July 1, 2018), this appeal has been resolved without oral argument upon the entry of a separate written order.

-2- No. 1-23-1427

¶8 Defendant’s counterclaim alleged that plaintiffs breached the parties’ written contracts by

failing to pay charges resulting from tolls, fines, repairs and other violations enforceable through

the terms of the written contracts. Defendant also alleged that, regarding the parties’ oral contract,

plaintiffs failed to pay the agreed amount within the agreed upon time for the sale of the truck,

trailer, and new engine. In the alternative, defendant alleged unjust enrichment claims against

plaintiffs, alleging that they had benefitted from the use of the truck and trailer to defendant’s

detriment.

¶9 In January 2022, an arbitrator denied plaintiffs’ claim and awarded $15,757.72 to defendant

on its counterclaim. Plaintiffs rejected the award, and the case proceeded to a bench trial.

¶ 10 In April 2023, after a bench trial, the trial court rejected plaintiffs’ claim and ordered them

to pay defendant $15,757.72, i.e., $12,862.71 for breach of the parties’ written contracts and $2895

for breach of the parties’ oral contract. The trial court also ordered plaintiffs to pay defendant’s

reasonable legal fees for the arbitration.

¶ 11 According to the trial court’s written order, the court found that the parties’ oral agreement

provided that defendant would transfer title of ownership for the truck and trailer to plaintiffs when

plaintiffs paid defendant $61,000 for the truck and trailer (which consisted of $29,000 for the truck

and $32,000 for the trailer), and $13,395 for the replacement engine. However, plaintiffs paid

defendant only $29,000 for the truck and trailer and $10,500 for the engine, leaving an outstanding

balance of $34,895. The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that defendant had breached the oral

contract by failing to transfer possession and ownership of the truck to plaintiffs after they had

paid defendant $29,000. Specifically, the court found that the oral agreement was for the sale of

-3- No. 1-23-1427

the truck and trailer for a total of $61,000, not for the truck or trailer, and title of ownership of the

truck and trailer was not due until the full agreed amount was paid.

¶ 12 Accordingly, the trial court found that plaintiffs, and not defendant, had breached the oral

contract because plaintiffs, who had paid less than 50% of the total agreed amount for the truck

and trailer combined, did not perform their obligation to pay the full amount for purchase of the

truck and trailer. However, because defendant had regained possession of the trailer, the unpaid

amount of $32,000 for the trailer would be deducted from plaintiffs’ outstanding balance, so

plaintiffs owed defendant only $2895, i.e., the outstanding balance for the cost of the engine, under

the parties’ oral contract.

¶ 13 Also, the trial court rejected plaintiffs’ claim that defendant committed conversion because

nothing in the record indicated that the oral contract allowed for piece-by-piece selection and

transfer of the truck and trailer. Because plaintiffs did not pay the complete amount for purchase

of the truck and trailer, ownership remained with defendant and plaintiffs could not meet their

burden to establish a property right in the truck.

¶ 14 Regarding defendant’s counterclaim, the trial court ruled that plaintiffs breached the

parties’ written contracts and thus owed defendant $12,862.72, jointly and severally. Plaintiffs do

not challenge this portion of the award on appeal.

¶ 15 The trial court also found that plaintiffs’ conduct did not amount to unjust enrichment for

their use of the trailer or truck because an express contract existed between the parties that

concerned their compensation terms, i.e., that plaintiffs would receive 90% of the gross receipts of

the carrier payments and defendant would receive 10%.

-4- No. 1-23-1427

¶ 16 Finally, the trial court ordered plaintiffs to pay defendant’s reasonable legal fees for the

arbitration because plaintiffs rejected the arbitrator’s $15,757.72 award and failed to obtain a better

result at trial.

¶ 17 Plaintiffs moved the trial court to reconsider its judgment, which the court denied. The

court also awarded defendant $4193.74 in arbitration fees, for a total judgment for defendant of

$19,951.46. Plaintiffs appealed.

¶ 18 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 19 A. Substantial Performance

¶ 20 Plaintiffs argue that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that they breached the

parties’ oral contract because the parties’ e-mails and invoices, authenticated by witness testimony,

showed that plaintiffs substantially performed their obligations under that contract when they paid

$29,000 for the truck and $10,500 towards the $13,395 engine, but defendant kept possession of

the truck and engine and failed to return the money plaintiffs had paid. Plaintiffs argue that because

they performed part of the oral contract, they should be compensated for that portion of the

performance. They contend that defendant failed to completely perform under the contract because

defendant kept plaintiffs’ money and possession of the equipment. According to plaintiffs, the trial

court gave them credit for the $32,000 trailer because defendant regained possession of it;

however, the trial court failed to give plaintiffs a $29,000 credit for the truck defendant

repossessed.

¶ 21 To prevail on their claim of breach of contract, plaintiffs must prove (1) the existence of a

valid and enforceable contract, (2) that they substantially performed the contract, (3) that defendant

breached the contract, and (4) that damages resulted. See Rocha v. FedEx Corp., 2020 IL App (1st)

-5- No. 1-23-1427

190041, ¶ 95. Whether a breach of contract occurred is a question of fact and the judgment of the

trier of fact will not be disturbed unless it is clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Horton Industrial, Inc. v. Village of Moweaqua, 142 Ill. App. 3d 730, 738 (1986). “A factual

finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if it is clearly apparent from the record

that the trial court should have reached the opposite conclusion or if the finding itself is

unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based upon the evidence presented.” State Farm Fire & Casualty

Co. v. Welbourne, 2017 IL App (3d) 160231, ¶ 17.

¶ 22 The record on appeal does not contain a report of proceedings, bystander’s report, or agreed

statement of facts. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 323 (eff. July 1, 2017). As the appellants, plaintiffs have the

burden to present a sufficiently complete record of the proceedings that took place at trial to

support their claims of error. See Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391 (1984). In the absence of

such a record on appeal, it will be presumed that the order entered by the trial court was in

conformity with the law and had a sufficient factual basis. Chicago City Bank & Trust Co. v.

Wilson, 86 Ill. App. 3d 452, 454 (1980). Any doubts arising from the incompleteness of the record

will be resolved against the appellants. Block & Co. v. Storm Printing Co., 40 Ill. App. 3d 92, 96

(1976).

¶ 23 Without a report of proceedings, bystander’s report, or agreed statement of facts, this court

cannot review the evidence presented to the trial court to determine whether the trial court’s ruling

was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to file a record sufficient to

support their argument that the evidence introduced at trial supports their interpretation of the

parties’ oral contract—i.e., that they needed to pay only $29,000 to be entitled to possession and

ownership of the truck. Consequently, we assume that the evidence the trial court heard fully

-6- No. 1-23-1427

supported the court’s factual findings. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court based

on its findings regarding plaintiffs’ breach of the terms of the parties’ oral contract, which provided

for the sale of the truck and trailer for a total of $61,000, not for the truck or trailer.

¶ 24 B. Damages

¶ 25 Plaintiffs argue that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to award them

$39,500 in damages (consisting of the $29,000 they paid toward the truck and $10,500 they paid

toward the engine), which is necessary to restore them to the same position financially that they

would have occupied if defendant had not engaged in the wrongful conduct of refusing to credit

plaintiffs for their payments toward the truck and engine. Plaintiffs argue “[m]oreover, the circuit

court has erred in including the trailer in the calculation because it was neither paid for or changed

possession.” Plaintiffs assert that defendant took possession of the trailer and rented it out to other

trucking companies. Plaintiffs argue that because they accept the trial court’s award of $12,862.72

for defendant based on plaintiffs’ breach of the parties’ written contracts, a fair damage award in

plaintiffs’ favor would be $39,500 (the total amount they paid toward the truck and new engine),

minus $12,862.72 (the undisputed award they owe defendant based on their breach of the written

contracts), for a total award of $26,637.28.

¶ 26 Plaintiffs’ argument implicates the trial court’s findings regarding the terms of the parties’

oral contract. As stated above, we review the trial court’s factual findings for whether the

determination is against the manifest weight of the evidence. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.,

2017 IL App (3d) 160231, ¶ 17. However, without a report of proceedings, bystander’s report, or

agreed statement of facts, this court cannot review the evidence presented to the trial court

regarding the terms of the oral contract and whether plaintiffs or defendant breached those terms.

-7- No. 1-23-1427

Because plaintiffs have the burden to present a sufficiently complete record of the proceedings that

took place at trial to support their claims of error (see Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d at 391), in the absence of

such a record on appeal, we presume that the order entered by the trial court was in conformity

with the law and had a sufficient factual basis (see Chicago City Bank & Trust Co., 86 Ill. App. 3d

at 454), and resolve any doubts arising from the incompleteness of the record against plaintiffs

(see Block & Co., 40 Ill. App. 3d at 96).

¶ 27 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court that determined plaintiffs, not

defendant, breached the terms of the oral contract and ordered plaintiffs to pay defendant

$15,757.72 in damages plus $4193.74 in arbitration fees, for a total judgment for defendant of

$19,951.46.

¶ 28 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 29 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

¶ 30 Affirmed.

-8-