Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
General Court of Claims
Download PDF

McHenry Woodlands Development v. State of Illinois

33 Ill. Ct. Cl. 103 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1979-09-13 No. 76-CC-0543
Disposition: (No. 76-CC-0543-Claimant awarded $19,500.00.) Award: $19,500.00 Agency: Department of General Services (now Department of Administrative Services)
Cite as: McHenry Woodlands Development v. State of Illinois, 33 Ill. Ct. Cl. 103 (1979)
General Court of Claims 33 awarded 1970s McHenry Woodlands Development v. State of Illinois 33 Ill. Ct. Cl. 103 1979-09-13 (No. 76-CC-0543-Claimant awarded $19,500.00.) /opinions/v33-p0179-1/

MCHENRY WOODLANDS DEVELOPMENT, INC., Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought recovery under a lease for unpaid rent and damage repairs. The court found the Department liable and awarded $19,500.00 based on a joint stipulation.

Claim type: Contract

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

  1. WILLIAM J. SCOTT, Attorney General (J OHN R. FANO N E , Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.
  2. CoNmcTom-brr?ach of lease agreement.
  3. P RACTICE AND PROCEDURE-~pprOUal of settlements. While the Court is necessarily limited in its findings of fact to the facts presented to it by the parties, it is not bound by a stipulation between the parties as to an amount to be awarded, just as it is not bound by such a stipulation in its findings of law.

The Claimant, McHenry Woodlands Development, Inc. (“McHenry”) seeks recovery based upon contract from the Department of General Services, now called the Department of Administrative Services. (“Department”).

Claimant and Respondent entered into a lease whereby the Department was to occupy certain premises owned by McHenry and in return was to pay McHenry rent in the amount of $2,400.00 per month. In addition, the Department agreed to repair any damage to the premises and to surrender the premises to McHenry in good condition.

Both the Claimant and Respondent have agreed that the Department failed to comply with the terms of said lease in that:

1. The Department terminated the lease and failed to pay to McHenry rent for the months of July, August, September and October of 1975 amounting to $9,600.00.

[*104] 2. The Department caused extensive damages to the premises, its walls, doors, floors, ramps, windows, fence, heating and air conditioning and plumbing systems, and outside parking lot.

3. The Department failed to repair said damage thus requiring repair by McHenry of said damage and to return the premises in good condition at a cost of $9,900.00.

The Court has reviewed the facts set forth in the joint stipulation and considered the legal conclusions agreed upon therein. It appears that the stipulation is thorough, accurate and that it has been entered into legitimately so it also appears to the Court that the facts agreed upon are legally sufficient to sustain Claimant’s cause of action and that the granting of an award would be fair and consistent with the findings.

While the Court is necessarily limited in its findings of fact to the facts presented to it by the parties, it is not bound by a stipulation between the parties as to the amount of an award to be granted, just as it is not bound by such a stipulation in its findings of law.

It is the opinion of the Court however, that based upon the undisputed facts before it the Respondent is liable to the Claimant. The Court is also of the opinion that an award of $19,500.00 is fair reasonable and appropriate and that said sum accurately measures the actual damages suffered by Claimant.

It is hereby ordered that the sum of $19,500.00 be and the same is hereby awarded to the Claimant, McHenry Woodlands Development, Inc., in full satisfaction of any and all claims arising out of the above captioned cause.

Official volume 33 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion for: Fiscal Year 1980 – July 1, 1979–June 30, 1980)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.