Commercial Banking, Collections, and Bankruptcy

Bank of America N.A. v. Yun

Bank of America N.A. v. Yun
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Civil Procedure
Citation
Case Number: 
2022 IL App (3d) 210210
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, May 18, 2022
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Will Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded.
Justice: 
O'BRIEN

Creditor plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant alleging breach of contract after defendant failed to pay his credit card account. Defendant in his answer alleged affirmative defenses and counterclaims, including claims that the plaintiff violated the federal Truth in Lending Act and FCRA. The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s counterclaim and defendant appealed arguing the plaintiff did not provide any affirmative matter to negate the counterclaim. The appellate court reversed, finding that plaintiff offered “evidence that refutes a well-pleaded fact of the complaint,” rather than an affirmative matter, but affirmed a trial court order denying defendant’s motion to amend the counterclaim to include a prayer for punitive damages. (DAUGHERITY and HOLDRIDGE, concurring)

Public Act 102-765

Topic: 
Residential Real Estate Disclosure Act

(Tarver, D-Chicago; Sims, D-Chicago) is the first major update of the Residential Real Estate Disclosure Act since its enactment in 1994. Among its many changes include allowing for electronic delivery and notice of the disclosure and harmonizes this Act with the newer Illinois Trust Code and the Transfer on Death Instrument Act. It also clarifies that a seller does not waive being exempt if a disclosure report is nevertheless delivered. It also includes additional consumer protections for the buyer. Effective May 13, 2022. 

View Full Text of Legislation

City of Chicago v. Mance

Federal 7th Circuit Court
City of Chicago v. Mance
Civil Court
Bankruptcy
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 21-1355
Decision Date: 
April 21, 2022
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in confirming Bankruptcy Ct. order, finding that plaintiff-City’s possessory lien on defendant-debtor’s vehicle that it impounded due to unpaid tickets was “judicial lien” that was avoidable in bankruptcy under 11 USC section 522(f). Record showed that at time of debtor’s bankruptcy filing, City’s lien on her vehicle totaled $12,245 and that her vehicle was worth only $3,000. Also, instant lien qualified as judicial lien, where, prior to City obtaining instant impoundment lien, debtor underwent certain quasi-judicial proceedings that generated findings that debtor owed specific fines and other costs arising out of issuance of traffic tickets. Moreover, without said quasi-judicial proceedings, City could not impose lien on indebted driver’s vehicle. As such, instant lien did not qualify as “statutory lien” that would not be avoidable in bankruptcy because instant lien did not arise solely by statute.

House Bill 4158

Topic: 
Condominium Property Act and Common Interest Community Association Act

(Croke, D-Chicago; Feigenholtz, D-Chicago) adds a reserve study to the list of records that boards must provide to their homeowners upon request. It also extends the repeal date of Condominium and Common Interest Community Ombudsperson Act to January 1, 2024 (rather than July 1, 2022). Passed both chambers. 

View Full Text of Legislation

House Bill 5246

Topic: 
Condominium Property Act

Wheeler, R-North Aurora; Cappel, D-Plainfield) changes the law on providing of information to a prospective buyer by a unit owner. It requires that the principal officer of the unit owner’s association or other designated officer to provide the information specified in Section 22.1 within 10 business days, rather than 30 days, of the request by the prospective purchaser. It changes the fee to be imposed on the unit owner from “a reasonable fee” to “a reasonable fee not to exceed $375” covering the direct out-of-pocket cost of providing and copying the information. An association may charge an additional $100 for rush service completed within 72 hours. Passed both chambers. 

View Full Text of Legislation

House Bill 2775

Topic: 
Human Rights Act and real estate transactions

(Ford, D-Chicago; Villivalam, D-Chicago) amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to declare Illinois’ public policy is to prevent discrimination based on source of income in real estate transactions. Defines “source of income” as the lawful manner by which an individual is supported and their dependents are supported. Makes it a civil rights violation for specified discriminatory actions because of an individual’s source of income. Passed both chambers.  

View Full Text of Legislation

House Bill 4322

Topic: 
Residential Real Estate Disclosure Act

(Tarver, D-Chicago; Sims, D-Chicago) is the first major update of the Residential Real Estate Disclosure Act since its enactment in 1994. Among its many changes include the following: allowing for electronic delivery and notice of the disclosure and harmonizes this Act with the newer Illinois Trust Code and the Transfer on Death Instrument Act. It also clarifies that a seller does not waive being exempt if a disclosure report is nevertheless delivered. It also includes additional consumer protections for the buyer. Passed both chambers. 


 

View Full Text of Legislation

Pierre v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Pierre v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Civil Court
Standing
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 19-2993 &19-3109 Cons.
Decision Date: 
April 1, 2022
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Vacated and remanded

Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue instant Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim, even though plaintiff alleged that defendant-debt collector violated FDCPA be sending deceptive collection letter that attempted to collect on debt on which statute of limitations had expired. Plaintiff asserted that letter, which informed her that defendant would neither sue her for debt nor report it to credit agency, and that her credit score would not be affected regardless of payment or nonpayment, was confusing, since it contained possibility that she could be sued on debt in future. Ct. of Appeals, though, found that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue instant claim, since plaintiff failed to allege any concrete injury, where plaintiff neither made payment on debt, promised to do so or otherwise act to her detriment in response to anything in or omitted from collection letter. Moreover, plaintiff’s responses to collection letter, by calling defendant to dispute debt and contacting her attorney, were not cognizable harms, and plaintiff’s allegation that confusion arose from said letter is not concrete injury in FDCPA context. As such, Dist. Ct.’s $350,000 judgment in plaintiff’s class action was vacated and case was remanded to Dist. Ct. with instructions to dismiss case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Dissent filed.)