Commercial Banking, Collections, and Bankruptcy

Senate Bill 90

Topic: 
Wills and disabled adults
(Silverstein, D-Chicago) creates a rebuttable presumption that a will or codicil is void if it was executed or modified after the testator is adjudicated a disabled adult. The rebuttable presumption is overcome by clear and convincing evidence that the testator had the capacity to execute the will codicil at the time the will or codicil was executed. The rebuttable presumption doesn’t apply if the following occurs: If a verified petition by the plenary or limited guardian of the estate or at the request of the ward that is accompanied by current physician’s report that states the ward possesses testamentary capacity, the court may enter an order authorizing the ward to execute a will or codicil. In so ordering, the court must authorize the guardian to retain independent counsel for the ward with whom the ward may execute or modify a will or codicil. This subsection applies only to wills or codicils executed or modified after the effective date of this act. Scheduled for hearing in Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday afternoon.

budget issues

Topic: 
Court reporters
The immediate issue of funding for court reporters, childcare assistance, and the Department of Corrections is being negotiated by Governor Rauner and the four legislative leaders. As was reported in the Pantagraph, “A child care program for low-income parents needs $300 million to make it through the end of the year. The Illinois Department of Corrections says it will begin running out of money to pay guards in mid-April. And, funds to pay court reporters are running dry, potentially resulting in a stoppage of court activity.” This week I was told that legislators have noticed that they are not hearing as much from constituents on the shortage for court reporting funding as the other two problems. I was told that they were unaware of the impact that this would have on county detention of defendants awaiting trial and possible Speedy Trial problems. If you have an opportunity, you may wish to bring this up with your state senator and representative. Their telephone numbers may be found on the General Assembly website at www.ilga.gov/ Thank you.

Willis Capital LLC v. Belvedere Trading LLC

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Motions to Vacate
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 132183
Decision Date: 
Monday, March 16, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.,1st Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Justice: 
HARRIS
Plaintiff LLC filed Section 2-1401 petition to invalidate settlement agreement. Defendants defended agreement in response to petition, but agreement is silent as to receiving attorney fees in such circumstances. Court properly found that Plaintiff LLC failed to exercise due diligence in settlement proceedings. Even if Defendant partners in LLC owed a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff, Plaintiff is not relieved of its duty to exercise due diligence in Section 2-1401 petition. (DELORT and CUNNINGHAM, concurring.)

HB 3672

Topic: 
Recorders and property fraud system
(Greg Harris, D-Chicago) Amends the Counties Code. Provides that in a county that has a property fraud alert system, a county recorder may create a registration form to register a property owner on the county's property fraud alert system that a real estate professional may file with the recorder on behalf of a property owner. Provides that real estate professionals must register with the county recorder prior to filing the registration forms on behalf of property owners. Limits liability for those assisting a property owner with registering for the property fraud alert system. Limits home rule powers. Scheduled for hearing this Thursday in House Townships Committee.

House Bill 2456

Topic: 
Attorney's fees
(Kay, R-Glen Carbon) Authorizes the Illinois Supreme Court to adopt rules to promote the prompt, efficient, and cost-effective resolution of civil actions in which the amount in controversy is more than $10,000 but does not exceed $100,000. If a circuit court grants or denies, in whole or in part, a motion to dismiss because of the absence of a basis in law or fact for the action, then the court may award costs and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in amounts that the court determines are equitable and just. Authorizes reasonable deposition fees to be recovered as costs. Scheduled for hearing this Wednesday in House Judiciary Committee (Civil).

Gerard v. Gerard

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Bankruptcy
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 14-1496
Decision Date: 
March 12, 2015
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded
Dist. Ct. erred in affirming Bankruptcy Ct. order that found that Wisc. state court jury finding against debtor in slander of title lawsuit established that debtor had acted willfully within meaning 11 USC section 523(a)(6) that in turn precluded debtor from discharging $281,000 judgment that had been entered against him in said lawsuit. Special verdict form in state-court lawsuit allowed jury to find against debtor based on either intentional or negligent conduct. As such, remand was required for determination by Bankruptcy Ct. as to whether debtor’s actions in slander of title claim were “willful and malicious” within meaning of section 523(a)(6).

House Bill 3089

Topic: 
Citizen Participation Act
(Breen, R-Lombard) makes the following changes to the Act: (1) Amends the public policy provision of the Act to make as one of its intentions the ability to identify and provide a speedy resolution of meritless and retaliatory and provide damages in the form of attorney’s fees and costs to prevailing movants. (2) Provides that a claim is meritless if it lacks an essential element of the claim or fails against a reasonably foreseeable affirmative defense to that claim. (3) Provides that a plaintiff's claim is presumed to be retaliatory if the alleged basis for the claim is an act in furtherance of the constitutional rights to petition, speech, association, and participation in government. (4) Provides that a motion under the Act may be made as a motion to dismiss or as a motion for summary judgment or joined with other motions. (5) Provides that “attorney’s fees and costs” include reasonable trial and appellate attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with a motion under the Act, including, but not limited to, fees and costs for discovery that relates to such a motion. Scheduled for hearing next Wednesday in House Judiciary Committee.

FirstMerit Bank, N.A. v. Soltys

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Bankruptcy
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 140100
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
PUCINSKI
Plaintiff creditor received notice of debtor's bankruptcy proceedings but did not timely file an adversary claim to challenge dischargeability of its deficiency judgment claim. Plaintiff creditor cannot satisfy debt discharged in bankruptcy from property transferred by debtor to land trusts under exception for fraudulent transfers to third parties. Illinois land trusts are a vehicle for property ownership where the beneficiary retains control and are not "third party" entities for purposes of "fraudulent transfer to third parties" exceptions to bankruptcy discharge. (LAVIN and HYMAN, concurring.)

Fridman v. NYCB Mortgage Co., LLC

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Truth in Lending Act
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 14-2220
Decision Date: 
March 11, 2015
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded
Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant’s failure to credit plaintiff’s mortgage payment on day she authorized said payment on defendant’s website violated Truth in Lending Act (TILA). Under TILA, electronic authorization for mortgage payment entered on mortgage servicer’s website is “payment instrument or other means of payment,” such that defendant must credit said payment on day customer authorized said payment. Ct. rejected defendant’s contention that “day of receipt” of payment for purposes of TILA was day that it actually received funds from customer’s bank. (Dissent filed.)