Commercial Banking, Collections, and Bankruptcy

Public Act 100-1048

Topic: 
Summons and foreclosure

(Mulroe, D-Chicago; Martwick, D-Chicago) amends the Code of Civil Procedure to provide that the court’s jurisdiction is not affected by a technical error in format of a summons if the summons has been issued by a clerk of the court, the person or entity to be served is identified as a defendant on the summons, and the summons is properly served.

 

Actions for the recovery of real property following a foreclosure must be brought within two years after possession is taken. If a petition is filed to reopen a foreclosure proceeding, the purchaser or successor purchaser is entitled to remain in possession of the property until the foreclosure action is defeated or the previously foreclosed defendant redeems from the foreclosure sale if the purchaser has been in possession of the property for more than six months. A purchaser in actual possession of lands or tenements following a foreclosure is adjudged to be the legal owner of the lands or tenements if he or she continues in possession for two successive years and pays all taxes legally during that time.

 

Amends the Mortgage Rescue Fraud Act to provide that it is a violation for a distressed-property consultant to, among other things, enter into, enforce, or act upon any agreement with a foreclosure defendant, whether the foreclosure is completed or otherwise, if the agreement provides for a division of proceeds between the foreclosure defendant and the distressed-property consultant derived from the foreclosure litigation.

 

Effective August 23, 2018. 

View Full Text of Legislation

Public Act 100-1066

Topic: 
Human Rights Act

(Steans, D-Chicago; Currie, D-Chicago) makes the following changes to the Illinois Department of Human Rights’ practices and procedures: (1) Expands the time to file charges of discrimination from 180 to 300 days. (2) Allows complainants to opt-out of the IDHR investigation and commence an action in court. The 60-day opt-out period begins after a charge is filed with the IDHR. (3) Adds time limits for the IDHR to issue a notice of dismissal after a complainant notifies the IDHR of the EEOC’s right-to-sue. (4) Allows IDHR to dismiss charges if an action in court or another administrative agency would preclude claims in the IDHR charge. (5) Requires the IDHR give notice of the dismissal to complainants and allows them to challenge the IDHR dismissal in the Human Rights Commission.

 

It makes the following changes to the Human Rights Commission’s practices and procedures: (1) Requires commissioners to be an attorney or have at least four years of professional experience working for individuals or corporations affected by the HRA or similar laws. (2) Creates time limits for administrative law judges and the HRC to issue and publish decisions.

 

Effective August 24, 2018. 

View Full Text of Legislation

Emirat AG v. WS Packaging Group, Inc.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Emirat AG v. WS Packaging Group, Inc.
Civil Court
Contracts
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 17-1893
Decision Date: 
August 21, 2018
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s action alleging that defendant breached terms of contract that plaintiff had with third-party to produce scratch-off phone cards that contained game of chance for plaintiff’s customers. Record showed that defendant had contracted with third-party to produce said cards. While plaintiff alleged that said contract required defendant to produce cards that would not allow customers to “candle” or determine under any procedure what was under coating on cards without scratching off said coating, and that said “zero candling” was only acceptable standard for production of said cards, Ct. rejected plaintiff’s argument and found no breach of contract, since said standard was not mentioned in either contract between plaintiff and third-party or between third-party and defendant, and that both contracts were silent on issue of candling. Moreover, plaintiff’s experts conceded that said cards matched or exceeded trade association standard that provided that scratch off card presented security risk only if it could be candled in five minutes or less.

Public Act 100-987

Topic: 
Court fees and fines

(Andersson, R-Geneva; Mulroe, D-Chicago) creates the Criminal and Traffic Assessment Act. The Act would standardize court-filing fees and fines into 13 schedules of potential assessments for criminal and traffic offenses and four schedules for civil court cases. The Act also caps the maximum amount of money that can be assessed under each schedule and for various services or filings within the court process. The money collected under these assessment schedules would then be distributed at the state, county, and local levels for officials to decide how to best allocate their portion for maintaining the courts. It would also provide a sliding-scale waiver for some civil litigants and criminal defendants depending on their income relative to the federal poverty level. It has an immediate effective date for part of it and a delayed effective date for most of it.

View Full Text of Legislation

Levin v. Miller

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Levin v. Miller
Civil Court
Bankruptcy
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 17-1775
Decision Date: 
August 17, 2018
Federal District: 
S.D. Ind., Indianapolis Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed

 

Bankruptcy Ct. did not err in finding in favor of defendants-corporate officers of debtor-bank holding company, even though Trustee argued that defendants had breached fiduciary duty to holding company to provide holding company’s Bd. of Directors with material information concerning appropriate disposition of $76 million tax refund that Bd. transferred to two failing banks, where defendants had failed to advise Bd. to file for bankruptcy prior to distributing refund to banks so as to maximize holding company’s value of refund for creditors. Record showed that Bd.’s distribution of refund to banks was motivated by advice of governmental regulators and expert outside legal counsel in effort to save banks. Moreover, defendants had no authority to second-guess Bd.’s judgment by generating their own investigation as to best approach regarding distribution of tax refund. Also, at time of refund distribution, holding company was in crisis that was driven by demands of federal and state regulators to financially prop up failing banks.

 

Berg v. Social Security Administration

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Berg v. Social Security Administration
Civil Court
Bankruptcy
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 17-2389
Decision Date: 
August 17, 2018
Federal District: 
W.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Bankruptcy Ct. did not err in finding that defendant-SSA properly recovered $17,385 of its overpayment of benefits to plaintiff-debtor from award of back-benefits it owed to plaintiff, even though July 30, 2014 recovery/set-off occurred within 90 days prior to plaintiff filing bankruptcy petition. Record showed that on July 30, 2014, SSA informed plaintiff that she was entitled to $19,400 in disability payments that had accrued at rate of $1,440 per month beginning in May of 2013. All elements for instant set-off were present where SSA’s claim against plaintiff and plaintiff’s award of back benefits occurred prior to filing of bankruptcy petition. Ct. rejected plaintiff’s claim that SSA had improved its petition by entire $19,400 during said 90-day period, where Ct. found that back-benefit award had actually been accruing since May of 2013. Moreover,

Bankruptcy Ct. properly directed SSA to return only $2,015 of $19,400 that it took as offset, since SSA had only improved its position by $2,015 (through growth of back pay award) during relevant 90-day period.