City of Chicago v. Jewellery Tower, LLC ( 2023 )

2023 IL App (1st) 220236-UNos. 1-22-0236 & 1-22-0293
Order filed April 21, 2023
Fifth 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 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal ) Circuit Court of
Corporation, ) Cook County.
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) No. 17 M1 401501
)
JEWELLERY TOWER, LLC, )
MRR 55 WASHINGTON OWNER, LLC, )
) Honorable
) Patrice Ball Reed,
Defendants, ) Judge Presiding.
)
(MRR 55 Washington Owner LLC, )
Defendant-Appellee; Jewellery Tower, LLC, )
Defendant-Appellant). )
JUSTICE NAVARRO delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Mitchell and Lyle concurred in the judgment.
¶1 Held: The circuit court did not err in its December 14, 2021, order that required
defendant-appellant to sign a façade contract by December 21, 2021. The circuit
court did not abuse its discretion when it found defendant-appellant in indirect
civil contempt for failing to comply with the court’s order; affirmed.
ORDER
¶2 Defendant-Appellant, Jewellery Tower, LLC, appeals from the circuit court’s
interlocutory orders that found it in indirect civil contempt for failing to follow an order that
Nos. 1-22-0236 & 1-22-0293
required it to sign a façade contract with respect to a building owned by Jewellery Tower and
Defendant-Appellee MRR 55 Washington Owner LLC (MRR). Jewellery Tower also appeals the
circuit court’s underlying order that required it to sign a façade contract. On appeal, Jewellery
Tower contends that the court erred when it ordered Jewellery Tower to execute a façade
contract because the court did not have any authority to order the parties to sign the contract and
the order violated Jewellery Tower’s freedom to contract. Jewellery Tower also contends that the
circuit court abused its discretion when it found Jewellery Tower in indirect civil contempt for
failing to sign the contract.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 This action involves a 38-story high rise building located at 55 East Washington
Street in Chicago (Building) owned by both MRR and Jewellery Tower. MRR owns floors 13-21
of the Building, which consists of residential property and certain common areas, and Jewellery
Tower owns floors 1-12 and 22-38, which consists of retail/office property. The declaration of
covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements for the Building provides that MRR, as the
owner of residential property, is responsible for paying about 35% of the expenses that Jewellery
Tower must pay for services for the Building, including for costs related to the façade of the
Building.
¶5 Complaint and Brief Summary of Litigation Until January 2020
¶6 In 2017, the City of Chicago (City) filed a complaint against the owners of the
Building for building code violations, alleging that the Building failed to comply with the City of
Chicago Municipal Code (Code). In May 2018, the City filed a first amended complaint, alleging
that the Building failed to comply with the Code in a number of ways relating to both the interior
and exterior parts of the Building. As for the exterior part, the City alleged that defendants failed
2
Nos. 1-22-0236 & 1-22-0293
to “maintain the exterior walls***free from holes, breaks, loose or rotting boards or timbers and
any other conditions which might admit rain or dampness to the walls”; “[r]eplace broken,
missing or defective window panes”; and “maintain building or structure in a structurally safe
and stable condition.” The City sought civil penalties and injunctive relief, including a temporary
or permanent injunction requiring the defendant-owners to correct the violations.
¶7 We note that in 2017, the owner of Jewellery Tower, Xiao Hua Gong, was indicted in
Canada on charges related to money laundering and in December 2017, the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, Ontario, Canada court entered restraining orders that restrained Gong’s real
estate properties in the United States, including the Building. In October 2018, pursuant to a
treaty, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered an order that
enforced the restraining orders entered in Canada.
¶8 For a better understanding of the condition of the Building and history of the case
leading up to the circuit court’s December 14, 2021, order, we will briefly summarize various
documents contained in the record on appeal. The record contains a January 2019, critical
examination report for the Building prepared by Eskenazi & Farrell Associates, LLC, which
stated that the exterior walls had continued to deteriorate from the time the previous reports were
conducted in 2015 and 2017. It recommended that a “substantial” restoration project be
performed over the next four years and it “strongly recommend[ed] that the heavy duty overhead
protection canopy currently in place at the entire west and north elevations remain in place until
a substantial repair program has been completed.”
¶9 In April 2019, the City filed an emergency motion to vacate or appoint a receiver, in
which it stated that the Building posed a health and safety problem to the residents and should be
immediately vacated and secured. The City stated that on April 2, 2019, an inspection from
3
Nos. 1-22-0236 & 1-22-0293
Department of Buildings “found multiple building code violations, a number of which are
considered dangerous and hazardous.” The City also noted that the exterior wall issues were still
pending and that, “[a]lthough problematic, the exterior walls issues are not immediately
dangerous and hazardous.” The City requested the court order the tenants to vacate the Building
and the defendants to remove the unhealthy and unsafe conditions. The City requested, in the
alternative, the court appoint a general receiver.
¶ 10 The record includes various orders entered by the circuit court between October 2019
and December 2019, including orders that required Jewellery Tower to create and fund a
construction escrow account, pay utility and scaffolding bills, and repair broken windows at the
Building. On December 12, 2019, the City filed an emergency petition for appointment of a
limited receiver to “[p]repare a feasibility study regarding the care, management, and repair” of
the Building, fully fund the construction escrow account, pay utility and scaffolding bills, and
cooperate with MRR to fix the Building.
¶ 11 January 2020 – Receiver Appointed
¶ 12 On January 23, 2020, the court appointed Jones Receiverships, LLC, as a general
receiver for Jewellery Tower’s portion of the Building and ordered Jewellery Tower to
immediately pay the outstanding bills to the structural engineers and the scaffolding company. In
the receiver’s January 22, 2020, “comprehensive plan to stabilize the property,” it asserted that
the City’s inspector had “raised the facade as a potentially imminent threat that will
progressively get worse if not addressed,” that “[c]urrently the facade has been abated and
addressed by MRR,” and that “[t]his is a fix that should survive this winter’s freeze thaws,
however it may not survive a second winter.”
4
Nos. 1-22-0236 & 1-22-0293
¶ 13 On March 5, 2020, the court entered a supplemental order on its order appointing a
receiver, in which it concluded as follows:
“There exists dangerous and hazardous conditions at the Property that jeopardize the
health and safety of the public citizens of the City of Chicago due to cracked and broken
windows throughout the upper floors of the building, that could fall, strike and impale
pedestrians; and leaking water pipes due to improper heating and lack of insulation.”
The Court also stated that the Building “fails to meet the minimum standards of health and safety
required by the Municipal Code.”
¶ 14 In May 2020, the City’s inspector prepared another inspection report on the Building,
which stated that there were “multiple areas that have fractures on the face of the terracotta
masonry” and “[d]ue to the freeze and thaw conditions of the Chicago environment, water and
ice penetration to this terracotta present a dangerous and hazardous condition.” The report also
stated that there were “multiple window glass panes broken throughout the building,” which
“pose[d] a significant dangerous condition to the public at large.”
¶ 15 On September 23, 2020, MRR filed a motion to discharge the receiver based on an
undisclosed conflict of interest, which as discussed below, the circuit court subsequently denied.
¶ 16 On September 24, 2020, the court ordered the receiver to, among other things, secure
a follow-up report from Eskenazi and Farrell, and on October 7, 2020, Eskenazi and Farrell
issued a follow-report entitled “2019 Exterior Wall Repairs-2020 Follow up Report.” The report
stated that the stabilization work in 2019 “appears to have been installed properly and at the
locations of the walls with the highest questionability, but does not negate the need for
significant terra cotta façade repairs throughout the façade.” The report stated that there were
5
Nos. 1-22-0236 & 1-22-0293
several terra cotta units with multiple cracks, and it recommended the heavy duty canopy
protection remain in place until a major façade renovation program has been performed.
¶ 17 The record contains an October 19, 2020, email from the City to Jewellery Tower,
MRR, and the receiver, which stated that based on an October 14, 2020, inspection and the
requirements of the Code, the owners and general receiver of the Building “must take immediate
action to address and abate the dangerous conditions on the exterior façade of the property.” The
email required the parties to, among other things, complete “[a] full 100% hands on critical exam
façade inspection” of the entire property.
¶ 18 On October 29, 2020, the court issued an order that stated it approved the receiver’s
“proposed contract” with Klein & Hoffman. The record contains a November 4, 2020, letter
from Klein & Hoffman to the receiver with the subject “Proposal for Architectural Engineering
Services Façade Assessment and Recommendations for Repair,” which states that Klein &
Hoffman was familiar with the Building, as it had previously completed three other reports, and
it had a “thorough understanding of the issues which are critical to the proper assessment and
repair of the building’s terra cotta facades.” It states that, “[l]eft unrepaired, the probability that
terra cotta will dislodge, fall to the street level, and endanger the public will increase in
frequency.”
¶ 19 On November 19, 2020, the circuit court denied MRR’s motion to discharge the
receiver based on an undisclosed conflict of interest, which MRR had filed in September 2020.
MRR appealed the circuit court’s ruling under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(b) (eff. Mar. 8,
2016). On July 16, 2021, this court reversed the circuit court’s ruling. City of Chicago v.
Jewellery Tower, 2021 IL App (1st) 201352, ¶¶ 59-60. Thereafter, on August 4, 2021, the circuit
court entered an order discharging the receiver effective August 20, 2021.
6
Nos. 1-22-0236 & 1-22-0293
¶ 20 We note that, according to Jewellery Tower, by May 2021, the criminal case in
Canada involving Jewellery’s Tower’s owner was resolved. 1 According to the City and
Jewellery Tower’s briefs, on May 10, 2021, the circuit court entered an order that found that
Jewellery Tower could resume management of the Building. The May 10, 2021, order is not
contained in the record, but the parties do not dispute the contents of this order.
¶ 21 Klein & Hoffman’s Critical Examination Report
¶ 22 On August 13, 2021, Klein & Hoffman issued a critical examination report for the
Building. The report stated that the “facades are generally in poor condition,” “the severity and
extent of distress is significant,” and “the apparent lack of maintenance over the past several
decades has resulted in significant water infiltration and continued worsening of distress over
that time.” The report also stated that,
“No conditions observed were characterized as ‘unsafe and imminently hazardous.’
However, many locations with significant distress were observed and were designated for
stabilization repairs to prevent them from becoming ‘unsafe and imminently hazardous’ prior
to the next up-close inspection. Stabilization repairs were installed promptly after completion
of each inspection drop.”
The report recommended that a “significant repair program be implemented” within two years
and that the “[e]xisting protective sidewalk canopies should remain in place and be regularly
maintained as necessary until long-term facade repairs are performed.”
1
According to Jewellery Tower’s April 25, 2021, written objections to the receiver’s motion to sell contained in the
record, the case in Canada was terminated, and Gong was absolved of the allegations.
7
Nos. 1-22-0236 & 1-22-0293
¶ 23 On October 26, 2021, the court issued an order that required the City, MRR, and
Jewellery Tower to schedule a meeting on November 18, 2021, “to outline the plan for fixing the
façade.”
¶ 24 Hearing and Order on December 14, 2021
¶ 25 At a hearing on December 14, 2021, the City’s counsel informed the court that the
parties held a meeting and had requested Klein & Hoffman to prepare a proposal that “covers the
full scope of work over a period of years to bring the building into compliance.” The City’s
counsel explained that on November 29, 2021, Klein & Hoffman presented a contract to the
parties and that MRR and Jewellery Tower were going to sign it. Jewellery Tower’s counsel then
responded:
“You know, I can submit some clarity there. You know, again, we’re not opposed to
Klein Hoffman that they do have, you know, immense experience with the building and
they’re familiar with that. I think it’s maybe their third or second examination. I only ask
that that [sic] phone call will be provided with the proposal before committing to the
project.”
Jewellery Tower’s counsel explained that there were “just a couple of timeline issues I think we
wanted to discuss, specifically the windows, which I know everyone is concerned about and
frankly which we already paid for.” Counsel then stated, “Not withstanding [sic], you know,
we’re ready to move forward with this project provided some of the minor details are ironed
out.” Jewellery Tower’s counsel further explained that “the only thing that was keeping me from
committing was that we didn’t have a proposal yet that laid out the figures and timeline” and
now that “we do [have a proposal] I just think it makes sense to have a phone call immediately as
opposed to responding to email and I’m sure shortly after that phone call we can get the singed
8
Nos. 1-22-0236 & 1-22-0293
[sic] agreement and deposit.” Jewellery Tower’s counsel stated it could have the conversation
with Klein & Hoffman and sign the contract in one week and then asked for December 20, 2021,
for Jewellery Tower to sign the contract. After the discussion regarding the date of the
continuance, Jewellery Tower’s counsel stated, “[w]e do understand the need to get the ball
rolling and we do appreciate that.”
¶ 26 Thereafter, the court orally ordered the parties to sign a contract by December 21,
2021, with Jewellery Tower providing $3 million as a deposit and MRR providing $1.5 million
as a deposit by January 5, 2022. Following the hearing, the court issued a written order, which
stated:
“There is a proposal to repair the exterior facade that was presented to [Jewellery
Tower] and MRR by Klein and Hoffman. A final contract shall be executed by both
owners on or before December 21, 2021. In order to ensure that the prep work begins
promptly, the court orders that a deposit of $4.5 million be funded by January 5, 2022.
The court hereby orders that [Jewellery Tower] deposit $3 million and MRR deposit $1.5
with Klein and Hoffman, or an alternate escrow agent, by that deadline.”
The court also ordered Jewellery Tower and MRR to inspect every window in the Building every
two weeks to ensure none were broken or dangerous.
¶ 27 Jewellery Tower’s Motion for Extension of Time
¶ 28 On December 20, 2021, Jewellery Tower filed a motion to extend the deadline to
execute the agreement, arguing that when the court issued its December 14, 2021, order only one
proposal for façade repairs had been submitted for review. Jewellery Tower stated that it must be
given “an opportunity to explore proposals that offer alternative timelines for the ultimate
completion of the façade repairs.” It claimed that the additional time to “contemplate and
9
Nos. 1-22-0236 & 1-22-0293
evaluate the proposal will cause little to no delays,” as construction was not “slated to commence
until the Spring of 2023” and Klein & Hoffman’s critical examination report indicated that the
facade was “currently in stable condition.” Jewellery Tower further stated that it “must be
afforded more than six (6) days to evaluate and execute an agreement that will ultimately span
more than four years and cost upwards of fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000), which fact alone
should suffice to warrant an extension to the deadline imposed in the Order.” Jewellery Tower
asserted that on December 20, 2021, MRR circulated a rider to the proposal with additional
terms, which was “further evidence that the parties require additional time to properly vet K&H,
review the terms of the agreement and, ultimately, execute a contract that is in the best interest of
the Pittsfield Building and surrounding premises.” In its prayer for relief, Jewellery Tower
requested a three-week extension.
¶ 29 On January 3, 2022, the court issued an order denying Jewellery Tower’s motion to
extend the deadline to execute the facade repair agreement. 2 The court stated:
“[Jewellery Tower’s] Motion to Extend the Deadline to Execute the Façade Repair
Agreement is denied. The Court finds that this motion is a further delay to the project and
that [Jewellery Tower] had adequate time for due diligence and to entertain alternate
proposals. The Court has seen [Jewellery Tower] and its principal Edward Gong
repeatedly take actions to delay bringing the property into compliance over the past 5
years that the case has been pending. The Court modifies its December 14, 2021 order to
provide that the contract must be executed by Friday, January 7, 2022 by both [Jewellery
2
The circuit court’s January 3, 2022, order is not contained in the record on appeal but is included in the appendix to
MRR’s brief. Although the order is not included in the record, we may take judicial notice of the circuit court’s
order. See Koshinski v. Trame, 2017 IL App (5th) 150398, ¶¶ 9-10; Blumenthal v. Brewer, 2016 IL 118781, ¶ 35
(stating that it may take judicial notice of public records); In re Brown, 71 Ill. 2d 151, 155 (1978) (“Clearly, a court
may and should take judicial notice of other proceedings in the same case which is before it and the facts established
therein.” ).
10
Nos. 1-22-0236 & 1-22-0293
Tower] and MRR. The court’s requirement to deposit $4.5 million is modified to reflect a
new deadline of January 12, 2022 with all other terms of the order remaining in full force
and effect.
¶ 30 Orders Following the Circuit Court’s Denial of Jewellery Tower’s Motion for
Extension of Time
¶ 31 At a hearing on January 11, 2022, the court noted that Jewellery Tower had not
signed the contract 3 and, on the same day, the court issued a written order that, among other
things, stated that, “[a]ll orders remain in full force and effect, including the order requiring the
facade repair contract to be executed and $4.5 million to be put in escrow.” On January 13, 2022,
the court issued another written order that stated that, “[a]ll orders remain in full force and effect,
including the order requiring the facade repair contract to be executed and $4.5 million to be put
in escrow.”
¶ 32 At a hearing on January 19, 2022, Jewellery Tower’s counsel informed the court that
Jewellery Tower had signed a rider to the contract that stated it “did not agree to the terms that
Klein & Hoffman had put forward and it was signed under protest.” The court responded that
Jewellery Tower had been ordered three different times to sign the contract and it was going to
hold Jewellery Tower in contempt. Following the hearing, on January 20, 2022, the court issued
a written order, which stated that it found Jewellery Tower in indirect civil contempt for its
“failure to sign the facade contract with Klein and Hoffman and to pay the initial down payment
of $3 million as ordered repeatedly by this court.” It stated that Jewellery Tower “was ordered to
3
The January 11, 2022, transcript is not contained in the record on appeal, but it is included in the appendix to
MRR’s brief. Jewellery Tower does not object to the inclusion of the January 11, 2022, transcript in MRR’s brief, or
this court’s consideration of it. As appellant, it is Jewellery Tower’s burden to provide a complete record on appeal.
See Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp. v. Heber, 355 Ill. App. 3d 1076, 1080 (2005) (“It is the appellant’s burden
to preserve the trial evidence and to present a sufficiently complete record of the trial proceedings to support a claim
of error on appeal.”).
11
Nos. 1-22-0236 & 1-22-0293
execute the contract and pay the money in the court order of December 14, 2021” and that it had
rejected Jewellery Tower’s motion to extend the deadline and required the contract to be signed
by January 7, 2022, with money deposited by January 12, 2022, neither of which had been done.
The order stated that Jewellery Tower “willfully failed to comply with the court’s order” and
assessed a daily fine of $500 per day until it complied with the court’s order.
¶ 33 At a hearing on January 25, 2022, the court orally stated that the contract with Klein
& Hoffman “needs to get signed” and the court explained its finding regarding Jewellery
Tower’s conduct in the case: “It’s evident that he delays because he feels like he should be or he
can. And enough is enough.” On January 27, 2022, the court issued a written order that stated
that Jewellery Tower “continued to willfully fail to comply with the court’s order regarding the
facade contract” and increased the daily fine to $1,000 per day until it complied with the court’s
order.
¶ 34 We note that the record contains a February 4, 2022, letter addressed to the circuit
court judge from Klein & Hoffman that stated it was providing additional clarity on the condition
of the terra cotta facades of the Building. It stated that “much of the terra cotta is cracked in a
manner that has compromised its lateral attachment to sound construction behind,” which
“makes the terra cotta more susceptible to outward movement and possible dislodgement from
the façade.” It stated that, “[t]his condition creates a fall hazard and is a public safety concern”
and concluded that, [c]onsidering the condition of the facades, the recommended timeframe for
repair, and the long lead-time for new terra cotta, K&H feels it is imperative that the preparation
of construction documents and bidding/contract negotiation be initiated as soon as possible,
immediately followed by the initial steps to procure the new terra cotta.” Klein & Hoffman also
concluded that “further delay creates an unacceptable public safety concern.”
12
Nos. 1-22-0236 & 1-22-0293
¶ 35 Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(5) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016), Jewellery Tower
filed an interlocutory appeal of the circuit court’s January 20, 2022, order that found Jewellery
Tower in indirect civil contempt for failing to sign a façade contract as ordered in the December
14, 2021, order as well as the December 14, 2021, order that ordered it to sign a façade contract
(case No. 1-22-0236). Under Rule 304(b)(5), Jewellery Tower also filed an interlocutory appeal
of the circuit court’s January 27, 2022, order that found Jewellery Tower “continued to willfully
fail to comply with the court’s order regarding the façade contract” and increased the daily fine
to $1,000 per day (case No. 1-22-0293). We subsequently granted Jewellery Tower’s unopposed
motion to consolidate the appeals.
¶ 36 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 37 Circuit Court’s December 14, 2021, Order
¶ 38 On appeal, Jewellery Tower contends that the court erred when it ordered Jewellery
Tower to execute the façade contract. It argues that the court did not have any statutory authority
to order the parties to sign a contract and that the court’s order violated its fundamental freedom
to enter into its own contract and determine its own contractual obligations. It asserts that the
court ordered Jewellery Tower to sign a specific contract, with a specific vendor, for a specific
amount, none of which Jewellery Tower negotiated or accepted.
¶ 39 Under Rule 304(b)(5), a party may appeal “[a]n order finding a person or entity in
contempt of court which imposes a monetary or other penalty.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)(5) (eff. Mar.
8, 2016). “The review of a contempt finding necessarily requires review of the order upon which
it is based.” In re Marriage of Nettleton, 348 Ill. App. 3d 961, 968 (2004).
¶ 40 The parties disagree on the standard of review for the circuit court’s underlying
December 14, 2021, order that required Jewellery Tower to sign a façade contract. The City and
13
Nos. 1-22-0236 & 1-22-0293
MRR assert that we review the circuit court’s order that required Jewellery Tower to sign a
façade contract for abuse of discretion. The City asserts that we review the decision under the
abuse of discretion standard because we are reviewing a decision to grant injunctive relief. See
Tully v. Edgar, 286 Ill. App. 3d 838, 847 (1997) (“It is well established that a circuit court is
endowed with broad discretion to fashion such remedies or to grant such relief as equity may
require to remedy a wrong.”). Jewellery Tower argues that we review de novo the circuit court’s
order that required it to sign a façade contract because the resolution of the appeal turns on
questions of contract and statutory interpretation. See Progressive Universal Insurance Co. of
Illinois v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 215 Ill. 2d 121, 128 (2005) (stating that de novo
review is appropriate when resolution of the appeal turns on questions of statutory
interpretation).
¶ 41 Jewellery Tower has not asserted a claim that requires us to interpret a contract or a
statute, so we disagree with Jewellery Tower’s argument that de novo review applies. Rather, we
must determine whether the court’s December 14, 2021, order that required Jewellery Tower to
sign a façade contract by December 21, 2021, was proper. We therefore find that the abuse of
discretion standard applies. See Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co. v. Sykes, 384 Ill. App. 3d
207, 218 (2008) (reviewing the trial court’s interlocutory order granting injunctive relief under
the abuse of discretion standard).
¶ 42 “The building code of Chicago is designed to protect the occupants of buildings and
the public generally.” City of Chicago v. Larson, 31 Ill. App. 2d 450, 455 (1961). Further, under
section 11-13-15 of the Illinois Municipal Code, municipalities may “enforce zoning and
building ordinances in order to promote public health, welfare and safety.” Village of Tinley Park
v. Ray, 299 Ill. App. 3d 177, 179 (1998) (citing 65 ILCS 5/11-13-15 (West 1996)). Under that
14
Nos. 1-22-0236 & 1-22-0293
section of the Illinois Municipal Code, a court “has the power and in its discretion may issue a
restraining order, or a preliminary injunction, as well as a permanent injunction, upon such terms
and under such conditions as will do justice and enforce the purposes” of the statute. 65 ILCS
5/11-13-15 (West 2022). Further, “a property owner does not have a right to allow his property
to fall into such disrepair as to create a public health and safety risk.” McIlvaine v. City of St.
Charles, 2015 IL App (2d) 141183, ¶ 15.
¶ 43 We initially note that Jewellery Tower does not dispute that the Building is dangerous
or unsafe, and even asserts in its reply brief that the circuit court’s finding that the Building was
“dangerous and unsafe” is not at issue in this appeal and that “the issue on appeal is whether the
designation of a building as ‘dangerous and unsafe’ empowers the court to override a party’s
freedom of contract and force such party to sign a specific contract, for a specific amount, and
with a specific contractor.” Indeed, the record shows that the circuit court found the Building
unsafe and dangerous in March 2020, and that the conditions had not improved when the court
issued its December 14, 2021, order. Specifically, in the court’s March 5, 2020, order, it stated
that “[t]here exists dangerous and hazardous conditions at the Property that jeopardize the health
and safety of the public citizens of the City of Chicago” and that the Building failed to meet the
minimum safety standards required by the Code. In Klein & Hoffman’s August 13, 2021, critical
examination report, it stated that the “facades are generally in poor condition,” “the severity and
extent of distress is significant,” “the exposure to the elements with minimal maintenance repairs
over the past several decades has resulted in extensive façade distress,” and “the apparent lack of
maintenance over the past several decades has resulted in significant water infiltration and
continued worsening of distress over that time.” Accordingly, the record shows, and Jewellery
15
Nos. 1-22-0236 & 1-22-0293
Tower does not dispute on appeal, that when the court entered its December 14, 2021, order, the
Building’s façade was dangerous and unsafe.
¶ 44 Further, we note that in February 2022, Klein & Hoffman concluded that the façade
of the Building created a public safety hazard. According to Klein & Hoffman’s February 4,
2022, letter contained in the record, “much of the terra cotta is cracked in a manner that has
compromised its lateral attachment to sound construction behind,” which “makes the terra cotta
more susceptible to outward movement and possible dislodgement from the façade.” Klein &
Hoffman concluded that “[t]his condition creates a fall hazard and is a public safety concern”
and “further delay creates an unacceptable public safety concern.”
¶ 45 We now turn to Jewellery Tower’s contention that the court’s December 14, 2021,
order violated fundamental principles of contract law and deprived Jewellery Tower of the
freedom to enter into its own contract. Jewellery Tower asserts that the court required it to sign a
specific contract, with a specific vendor, for a specific amount. We disagree.
¶ 46 The record does not show that the court ordered Jewellery Tower to sign a specific
contract. Rather, at the December 14, 2021, hearing, the court was informed that the parties had
requested Klein & Hoffman to prepare a proposal and that Klein & Hoffman presented a
proposal to the parties on November 29, 2021. The record contains the November 29, 2021,
proposal from Klein & Hoffman, which was submitted directly to Jewellery Tower and MRR.
The court was informed that MRR and the City were going to sign the Klein & Hoffman
proposal, and Jewellery Tower represented that it was ready to move forward with the proposal
and it was not opposed to Klein & Hoffman, noting that it had immense experience with the
Building. The parties did not present alternative proposals to the court, indicate that they had
considered other proposals, or request additional time to seek other proposals. Rather, Jewellery
16
Nos. 1-22-0236 & 1-22-0293
Tower’s counsel stated, “I only ask that that [sic] phone call will be provided with the proposal
before committing” and that it “was ready to move forward with this project provided some of
the minor details are ironed out.” Jewellery Tower then expressly stated it could sign the contract
in one week and requested until December 20, 2021, to sign the contract. The court allowed
Jewellery Tower’s request and gave Jewellery Tower until December 21, 2021, to sign “[a] final
contract.” Thus, in the court’s December 14, 2021, order, the court gave Jewellery Tower the
time it expressly stated it needed to iron out the minor details and sign a façade contract and did
not require Jewellery Tower to sign a specific contract.
¶ 47 Further, at the time the court issued its December 14, 2021, order, MRR and the City
told the court they were going to sign the façade contract and, as previously discussed, the
Building was in a dangerous and unsafe condition. The court found the Building unsafe and
dangerous in March 2020, and the case had been pending since the City filed its initial complaint
in 2017. And, as previously stated, a “a property owner does not have a right to allow his
property to fall into such disrepair as to create a public health and safety risk.” McIlvaine, 2015
IL App (2d) 141183, ¶ 15. Under these circumstances and considering the condition of the
Building, we cannot find that the court erred in its December 14, 2021, order, when it required
Jewellery Tower to sign a “[a] final contract” to repair the façade of the Building on or before
December 21, 2021, a date requested by Jewellery Tower.
¶ 48 We note that in the court’s January 3, 2022, order that denied Jewellery Tower’s
motion for extension of time to sign the contract, the court found that Jewellery Tower had
adequate time for due diligence and to entertain alternate proposals, that Jewellery Tower’s
motion for extension of time was “further delay” to the project, and that Jewellery Tower and its
owner “repeatedly take actions to delay bringing the property into compliance over the past 5
17
Nos. 1-22-0236 & 1-22-0293
years that the case has been pending.” In that same order, the court expressly modified the
December 14, 2021, order and gave Jewellery Tower until January 7, 2022, to sign the contract,
which was a 17-day extension from the initial December 21, 2021, date by which it had to sign
the contract.
¶ 49 Indirect Civil Contempt Orders–January 20, 2022, and January 27, 2022
¶ 50 Jewellery Tower contends that the circuit court erred when it found Jewellery Tower
in indirect civil contempt for failing to sign the contract in the January 20, 2022, and January 27,
2022, orders. Jewellery Tower argues that its actions with respect to the December 14, 2021,
order cannot constitute willful disobedience. It asserts that it was given one week to evaluate a
contract that would span more than four years and cost over $15 million and that the court denied
its request for an extension and its ability to negotiate the terms of the contract with Klein &
Hoffman or to find another contractor.
¶ 51 “A court has the authority to enforce its orders by way of contempt.” In re Marriage
of Levinson, 2013 IL App (1st) 121696, ¶ 52. Thus, “a party may be held in civil contempt for
willfully failing to comply with a court order.” In re Marriage of Harnack & Fanady, 2022 IL
App (1st) 210143, ¶ 46. “Civil contempt proceedings ‘are coercive, that is, the civil contempt
procedure is designed to compel the contemnor to perform a specific act.’ ” Id. (quoting In re
Marriage of Levinson, 2013 IL App (1st) 121696, ¶ 52). “The existence of an order of the trial
court and proof of willful disobedience of that order is essential to any finding of indirect civil
contempt.” In re Marriage of Charous, 368 Ill. App. 3d 99, 107 (2006). “Once the party bringing
the contempt petition establishes a prima facie case of disobedience of a court order, the burden
shifts to the alleged contemnor to prove that the failure to comply was not willful or
18
Nos. 1-22-0236 & 1-22-0293
contumacious and that there exists a valid excuse for his failure.” In re Marriage of Harnack &
Fanady, 2022 IL App (1st) 210143, ¶ 46.
¶ 52 The question of “whether a party is guilty of contempt is a question of fact to be
resolved by the circuit court, and its resolution of the issue will not be disturbed on appeal unless
it is against the manifest weight of the evidence or the record reflects an abuse of discretion.” Id.
¶ 47. “ ‘A decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence where the opposite conclusion
is clearly apparent or where the court’s findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or not based on the
evidence.’ ” In re Marriage of Knoll & Coyne, 2016 IL App (1st) 152494, ¶ 50 (quoting In re
Marriage of Demaret, 2012 IL App (1st) 111916, ¶ 43).
¶ 53 Applying these principles, we find that the circuit court’s rulings on January 20, 2022,
and January 27, 2022, that found Jewellery Tower in indirect civil contempt for failing to sign
the façade contract are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 54 On December 14, 2021, the court gave Jewellery Tower until December 21, 2021, to
sign the contract, as Jewellery Tower had requested until December 20, 2021, to do so. Then, on
January 3, 2022, although the court denied Jewellery Tower’s motion for extension and found
that Jewellery Tower had adequate time for due diligence and to entertain alternate proposals, it
modified the December 14, 2021, order and gave Jewellery Tower until January 7, 2022, to sign
the contract. Jewellery Tower did not sign a contract by January 7, 2022, so it did not comply
with the court’s order. Thereafter, the court warned Jewellery Tower that it could be held in
contempt and Jewellery Tower continued to fail to comply with the court’s order, as the court
entered orders on January 11, 2022, and January 13, 2022, that stated “[a]ll orders remain in full
force and effect, including the order requiring the facade repair contract to be executed and $4.5
million to be put in escrow.” At the hearing on January 19, 2022, Jewellery Tower informed the
19
Nos. 1-22-0236 & 1-22-0293
court that it signed the contract “under protest” and “did not agree to the terms,” and the court
responded that Jewellery Tower had been ordered three different times to sign the contract. Thus,
on January 20, 2022, and January 27, 2022, when the court entered its indirect civil contempt
findings, Jewellery Tower had repeatedly failed to comply with the court’s order.
¶ 55 Further, the record supports the circuit court’s findings that Jewellery Tower’s failure
to comply with the order was willful. See In re Marriage of Harnack & Fanady, 2022 IL App
(1st) 210143, ¶ 46 (“Once the party bringing the contempt petition establishes a prima facie case
of disobedience of a court order, the burden shifts to the alleged contemnor to prove that the
failure to comply was not willful or contumacious and that there exists a valid excuse for his
failure.”).
¶ 56 Jewellery Tower asserts that it refused to execute the contract because it was given an
unreasonable period of just one week to review the contract that would have serious implications
for its Building and would span more than four years and cost at least $15 million. It asserts it
had limited time to review the terms of the contract, evaluate the impact of the work on the
Building, or consider alternate proposals from other contractors. However, at the December 14,
2021, hearing Jewellery Tower represented to the court that it was ready to “move forward with
this project provided some minor details are ironed out,” did not oppose Klein & Hoffman, and
asked to sign it by December 20, 2021. Jewellery Tower did not assert that it wanted to seek
alternate proposals or that it would need more than one week to sign the contract. The court also
expressly found that Jewellery Tower had a history of taking actions that delayed the case,
finding in its January 3, 2022, order that Jewellery Tower and its owner “repeatedly take actions
to delay bringing the property into compliance over the past 5 years” and stating at the January
25, 2022, hearing that, “[i]t’s evident that he delays because he feels like he should be or he can.
20
Nos. 1-22-0236 & 1-22-0293
And enough is enough.” In addition, when Jewellery Tower repeatedly failed to comply with the
order regarding the façade repair contract, the Building’s condition was considered dangerous
and unsafe, with the court having made that finding in March 2020.
¶ 57 Accordingly, given Jewellery Tower’s representations at the December 14, 2021,
hearing, and the court’s findings that Jewellery Tower repeatedly took actions to delay the case,
which had been pending since 2017, we find that the record supports the circuit court’s orders
that found Jewellery Tower willfully failed to comply with the court’s order. We cannot find an
opposite conclusion is clearly apparent or that the findings are unreasonable, arbitrary, or not
based on the evidence. Thus, the circuit court’s rulings that found Jewellery Tower in indirect
civil contempt for failing to execute the façade contract are not against the manifest weight of the
evidence. Lastly, we note that to the extent Jewellery Tower asserts that the court erred in the
December 14, 2021, order that required Jewellery Tower to deposit $3 million with Klein &
Hoffman or an alternate escrow, the argument is forfeited, as Jewellery Tower failed to properly
develop the issue in its opening brief. See Ill. S. Ct. Rule 341 (h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) (“Points
not argued are forfeited and shall not be raised in the reply brief, in oral argument, or on petition
for rehearing.”); U.S. Bank Trust National Association v. Junior, 2016 IL App (1st) 152109, ¶ 19
(“Failure to properly develop an argument does ‘not merit consideration on appeal and may be
rejected for that reason alone.’ ”) (quoting Housing Authority of Champaign County v. Lyles, 395
Ill. App. 3d 1036, 1040 (2009)). We also note that MRR argues that Jewellery Tower’s appeal is
futile because it only appealed the December 14, 2021, order, which was only one of the four
orders that required it to sign a contract. MRR asserts that the December 14, 2021, order was the
only underlying order appealed or even addressed in Jewellery Tower’s opening brief and that it
has forfeited all arguments related to the other orders that required it to sign a contract, including
21
Nos. 1-22-0236 & 1-22-0293
the orders entered on January 3, January 11, and January 13, 2022. See Ramos v. Kewanee
Hospital, 2013 IL App (3d) 120001, ¶ 37 (“ ‘Points not argued are waived’ and failure to
properly develop an argument and support it with citation to relevant authority results in
forfeiture of that argument.” (quoting Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. July 1, 2008)). Jewellery
Tower responds in its reply brief that the December 14, 2021, order is “the only order that serves as
the basis for the contempt finding.” Given our disposition regarding the December 14, 2021,
order, we need not address MRR’s argument.
¶ 58 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 59 The circuit court did not err in its December 14, 2021, order that required Jewellery
Tower to sign a façade contract. The circuit court did not err when it found Jewellery Tower in
indirect civil contempt in its orders entered on January 20, 2022, and January 27, 2022. We
therefore affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
¶ 60 Affirmed.
22