Zanayed v. Mufarreh

── Zanayed v. Mufarreh ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: May 14, 2026 Category: General 2026 IL App (1st) 240744-U No. 1-24-0744 Order filed May 14, 2026 Fourth 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 ______________________________________________________________________________ AKRAM ZANAYED, INDIVIDUALLY AND ) DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF PROTÉGÉ ) INVESTMENTS INCORPORATED, AN ILLINOIS ) CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) Appeal from the v. ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County. MICHAEL P. MUFARREH, INDIVIDUALLY, BAMCO ) CONSTRUCTION, LLC, AN ILLINOIS LIMITED ) No. 20 CH 05869 LIABILITY COMPANY, AND PROTÉGÉ ) INVESTMENTS, INCORPORATED, AN ILLINOIS ) Honorable CORPORATION AS A NOMINAL DEFENDANT, ) Caroline Kate Moreland, ) Judge Presiding. Defendants. ) ) (Michael P. Mufarreh ) ) Appellant.) ) JUSTICE LYLE delivered the judgment of the court. Justice Mikva concurred in the judgment. Justice Mitchell dissented, with opinion. ORDER No. 1-24-0744 ¶1 Held: We affirm the judgment of the trial court over defendant’s contention that the court erred in enforcing the settlement agreement and in awarding plaintiff attorney fees. ¶2 This appeal arises following the trial court’s entry of an order granting a second motion to enforce a settlement agreement between plaintiff, Akram Zanayed, individually and derivatively on behalf of Protégé Investments Incorporated (Protégé), and defendant, Michael Mufarreh. Mr. Zanayed and Mr. Mufarreh owned and operated a corporation that managed rental properties. Mr. Zanayed filed suit against Mr. Mufarreh alleging that he was improperly funneling funds from their jointly owned corporation to a company owned by Mr. Mufarreh. The parties eventually settled and the trial court dismissed the action without prejudice. ¶3 Mr. Zanayed subsequently filed a motion in the trial court to enforce the settlement agreement. Mr. Mufarreh contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. The court found that it had jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, found that Mr. Mufarreh was in breach, and ordered that Mr. Zanayed did not have to send payments to Mr. Mufarreh pursuant to the agreement until Mr. Mufarreh fulfilled his obligation to transfer real property. This court affirmed the trial court’s order on appeal over Mr. Mufarreh’s contention that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. Zanayed v. Mufarreh, 2024 IL App (1st) 230331-U. ¶4 While that appeal was pending, Mr. Zanayed filed in the trial court a second motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The trial court again