Commercial Banking, Collections, and Bankruptcy

Avanti Medical Group, LLC v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A.

Avanti Medical Group, LLC v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Banking
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (2d) 140401
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Du Page Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
BIRKETT
Court properly dismissed complaint against bank for breach of credit agreement, as Plaintiffs failed to allege that agreement met signature requirement in section 2 of the Credit Agreements Act. Most obvious noncompliance was lack of mutual signatures on "Amended Terms" document. Section 2 requires that “the relevant terms and conditions” of loan be discernible from documents bearing signatures of both creditor and debtor. (McLAREN and HUDSON, concurring.)

Public Act 98-1132

Topic: 
Jury size and pay
(Burke, D-Evergreen Park; Mulroe, D-Chicago) makes the following changes for juror pay: (1) Requires counties to pay jurors $25 for the first day of service and thereafter $50 for each day of service. (2) Deletes the current requirement to pay for jurors’ travel expenses. (3) Requires all trials by jury in civil cases to be six jurors but still requires that the verdict be unanimous. If alternate jurors are requested, an additional fee established by the county must be charged for each alternate juror requested. Effective date is June 1, 2015.
View Full Text of Legislation

Druckzentrum Harry GmbH & KG v. Motorola Mobility LLC

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Druckzentrum Harry GmbH & KG v. Motorola Mobility LLC
Civil Court
Contracts
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 12-3057
Decision Date: 
December 18, 2014
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant breached supply contract that called for defendant to make good-faith effort to purchase 2% of its global cell phone user-manual needs from plaintiff, where, after year into instant two-year contract, defendant notified plaintiff that it was shifting its operation to different country and purchasing its print products from third-party. Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, parties’ written contract contained no promise of exclusive right to all of defendant’s printing business in Europe, Middle East and Asia, and contract terms allowed defendant to purchase less than 2% of its global cell-phone needs, where, as here, defendant had experienced significant downturn in business in said geographic areas. Moreover, Dist. Ct. properly rejected plaintiff’s attempt to use parol evidence to establish existence of defendant’s alleged oral promise to exclusivity purchase plaintiff’s printing products, since contract language was fully integrated and unambiguous with respect to defendant’s purchasing options.

Harold v. Steel

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Harold v. Steel
Civil Court
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 14-1875
Decision Date: 
December 11, 2014
Federal District: 
S.D. Ind., Indianapolis Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for want of prosecution plaintiff’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) action, where plaintiff alleged that defendant-debt collector violated section 1592e of FDCPA by making false statements in connection with defendant’s successful state-court action seeking to garnish plaintiff’s wages arising out of 20-year-old debt. Record showed that plaintiff did not seek review of state-court garnishment order, and Rooker-Feldman doctrine precluded plaintiff from subsequently seeking to alter state-court judgment by filing instant claim alleging that defendant made false statements during prior state-court litigation.

Nelson Brothers Professional Real Estate, LLC v. Freeborn & Peters LLP

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Nelson Brothers Professional Real Estate, LLC v. Freeborn & Peters LLP
Civil Court
Legal Malpractice
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 14-2046
Decision Date: 
December 5, 2014
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Record contained sufficient evidence to support jury’s finding in favor of plaintiffs in legal malpractice action against defendant-law firm, where plaintiffs alleged that defendant breached duty of loyalty to plaintiffs by favoring other member of plaintiffs’ joint venture by neglecting to advise plaintiff of existence of certain mechanics’ liens on commercial property purchased by joint venture that caused investors to shy away from investing in joint venture, and by failing to advise plaintiffs with respect to risks associated with personally guaranteeing certain loans made on behalf of joint venture. Defendant could not assert on appeal any statute of limitations defense, where defendant failed to raise it until after jury’s verdict. Moreover, member of defendant’s law firm admitted to failing to advise plaintiffs regarding potential conflicts of interest between plaintiffs and other member of joint venture, to whom defendant had also provided legal services.

Senate Bill 2799

Topic: 
FOIA

(Currie, D-Chicago) amends the FOIA Act to do two things. (1) It expands exemption (f) to include “correspondence” as exempt from a FOIA request. But this exemption is waived if and only if the specific record is publicly cited and identified by the head of the public body. If the specific record is publicly cited and identified by the head of the public body, then only those portions of the specific record publicly cited and identified are no longer exempt. Records exempt from disclosure under this subsection and not publicly cited and identified by the head of the public body, including, but not limited to, purely factual material, remain exempt regardless of whether the record was adopted or incorporated into a final decision of the public body. (2) If the public body produces the records after a suit has been filed under this Section, but before the court renders a final judgment, the court must award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if the court imposes a civil penalty under subsection (j). For purposes of this subsection (i), a requester “prevails” if the person obtains relief through: (a) a court-approved settlement or consent decree; or (b) a final unappealable judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction. House Amendment No. 3 remains in House Executive Committee.

View Full Text of Legislation

Senate Bill 2221

Topic: 
Statute of limitation for pollutants
(Sullivan, D-Quincy; Currie, D-Chicago) amends the Code of Civil Procedure to make an exception to the 10-year statute of limitation for personal injuries or death caused by the discharge into the environment of any pollutant. This would include any waste, hazardous substance, irritant, or contaminant (including but not limited to, smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, asbestos, toxic or corrosive chemicals, radioactive waste or mine tailings.). Scheduled for hearing Dec. 1 in House Judiciary Committee.
View Full Text of Legislation

Senate Bill 3075

Topic: 
Juror fees and jury composition
(Madigan, D-Chicago; Mulroe, D-Chicago) makes the following changes for juror pay: (1) Requires counties to pay jurors $25 for the first day of service and thereafter $50 for each day of service. (2) Deletes the current requirement to pay for jurors’ travel expenses. (3) Requires all trials by jury in civil cases to be six jurors but still requires that the verdict be unanimous. If alternate jurors are requested, an additional fee established by the county must be charged for each alternate juror requested. Effective date would be June 1, 2015. Senate Bill 3075 is scheduled for hearing Dec. 1 in House Judiciary Committee.
View Full Text of Legislation

In re Duckworth

Federal 7th Circuit Court
In re Duckworth
Civil Court
Bankruptcy
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 14-1561 & 14-1650 Cons.
Decision Date: 
November 21, 2014
Federal District: 
C.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded
In action by lender seeking to enforce its security interest in property held by debtor, Dist. Ct. erred in enforcing said security interest where security agreement contained wrong date of promissory note signed by debtor, and where Dist. Ct. considered parole evidence to obtain correct date of said promissory note. Although lender could use parole evidence to correct instant mistake when seeking to enforce security interest directly with debtor, lender could not use parole evidence against bankruptcy trustee. As such, instant security agreement did not give lender security interest in specified collateral that could be enforced against trustee.