Commercial Banking, Collections, and Bankruptcy

Senate Bill 56

Topic: 
Mortgage Foreclosure Article
(Collins, D-Chicago; Cassidy, D-Chicago) does three things. (1) Defines a “bona fide tenant” substantially consistent with the 2009 federal Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act. (2) Requires a petitioner to wait 90 days (unless the lease term is longer than 90 days) before a forcible entry and detainer action may be used to terminate the possessory rights of a bona fide tenant in residential real estate. Orders of possession issued in the foreclosure proceeding will continue to be entered against the mortgagor. (3) Addresses the deficiency issue in the 2010 McGahan case as to what procedure the mortgagee must follow if a mortgagor dies. If the survivor holds a 100% interest in the property because the survivor is the deceased mortgagor’s surviving joint tenant or surviving tenant by the entirety, a special representative for the deceased mortgagor need not be appointed. Passed both chambers.

Senate Bill 2306

Topic: 
Privacy and the workplace
(Radogno, R-Lemont; Mautino, D-Spring Valley) clarifies that an employer may request the password or gain access to the social-networking website of an employee or prospective employee if necessary to screen employees or applicants before hiring or to monitor or retain employee communications as required under Illinois insurance laws, federal law, or by a self-regulatory organization as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Passed both chambers.

Sams Hotel Group, LLC v. Environs, Inc.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Contracts
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 12-2979
Decision Date: 
May 31, 2013
Federal District: 
S.D. Ind., Indianapolis Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that limitation of liability clause contained in contract between plaintiff-owner of hotel and defendant-architectural firm to provide architectural services for construction of new hotel served to limit defendant’s damages in claim alleging that defendant breached said contract by providing poor quality services, even though $4.2 million judgment had been entered in plaintiff’s favor on said claim. Instant clause provided that defendant’s total liability from any breach of contract stemming from errors or omissions would be limited to $70,000 fee that defendant had received under said contract, and Ct. found that said clause applied under Indiana law, even though clause failed to explicitly refer to defendant’s own negligence, where instant case concerned two sophisticated commercial entities seeking to allocate risks between themselves.

Parkway Bank and Trust Company v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Conversion
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 122387
Decision Date: 
Monday, May 20, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.,1st Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
ROCHFORD
Bank filed declaratory judgment alleging that insurer refused to tender policy proceeds for fire loss on property on which bank was named as mortgagee under policy. Contractor forged bank's endorsement on check insurer issued for fire loss. Bank's only remedy is conversion action against the bank which cashed the check based on forged endorsement, under Section 3-420 of UCC. Thus, court properly granted summary judgment for insurer.(HOFFMAN and CUNNINGHAM, concurring.)

People’s National Bank, N.A. v. Banterra Bank

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Secured Interests
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 12-3079
Decision Date: 
May 20, 2013
Federal District: 
S.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Reversed
Dist. Ct. erred in reversing Bankruptcy Ct. order in favor of plaintiff in complaint seeking declaration that plaintiff’s 2004 mortgage had priority to $388,500 in proceeds of sale of debtor’s home over defendant-bank’s $296,000 mortgage to debtor’s home enacted in 2008 where: (1) terms of plaintiff’s 2004 mortgage included cross-collateralization clause that provided that debtor’s home would also serve as collateral to any future obligations arising between debtor and plaintiff (up to $214,044.26 amount of first mortgage); and (2) debtor and plaintiff had taken out second, 2007 mortgage of $400,000. Terms of cross-collateralization clause clearly covered plaintiff’s second $400,000 mortgage (up to $214,044.26 limit of first mortgage) even though defendant was unaware of plaintiff’s 2007 mortgage at time it loaned debtor $296,000 in 2008. Ct. of Appeals rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s 2004 mortgage was insufficient to impart record notice of plaintiff’s 2007 mortgage, after noting that: (1) defendant’s actual notice of cross-collateralization clause provided defendant with requisite inquiry notice to discover existence of other obligations covered by first mortgage; and (2) reasonable investigation would have disclosed existence of 2007 mortgage that covered debtor’s home.

House Bill 2327

Topic: 
Filing fee increase
(Riley, D-Hazel Crest; Hutchinson, D-Chicago Heights) authorizes county boards to increase the court automation fee and the court document fee from $15 to $25. These fees are currently being paid by civil litigants and convicted defendants.The ceiling for defendants will be $15 for the court automation fee. Passed the House and awaiting a Senate Revenue Committee vote in the Senate.

Senate Bill 1912

Topic: 
Tort cases and settlement
(Raoul, D-Chicago) amends the Code of Civil Procedure create an enforcement mechanism for cases that settle but the defendant won’t comply with the settlement. It is limited to cases seeking money damages involving personal injury, wrongful death, or tort action. It requires a settling defendant pay all sums due to the plaintiff within 21 days of tender of all applicable documents required under this new Section. The procedure is as follows: (1) Requires a “settling defendant” to tender a release to the plaintiff within 14 days of written confirmation of the settlement. If the law requires court approval of a settlement, the plaintiff must tender to the defendant a copy of the court order approving the settlement. (2) If there is a known third-party right of recovery or subrogation interest, the plaintiff may protect the third-party’s right of recovery or subrogation interest by tendering to the defendant: (a) A signed release of the attorney’s lien. (b) Any of the following: (i) a signed release of a healthcare-provider lien; (ii) a letter from the plaintiff’s attorney agreeing to hold the full amount of the claimed lien in his or her client-fund account pending final resolution of the lien amount; or (iii) an offer that the defendant hold the full amount of the claimed right of recovery pending final resolution of the amount of the right of recovery. (c) Any of the following: (i) documentation of the agreement between the plaintiff and Medicare, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, or the private health insurance company as to the amount of the settlement that will be accepted in satisfaction of right of recovery; (ii) a letter from the plaintiff’s attorney agreeing to hold the full amount of the claimed right to recovery in his or her client-fund account pending final resolution of the amount of the right to recovery; or (iii) an offer that the defendant hold the full amount of the claimed right to recovery pending final resolution of the amount of the right of recovery. (3) If the applicable court finds after a hearing that timely payment has not been made under this Section, judgment must be entered against that defendant for the amount in the executed release, costs incurred in obtaining the judgment, and 9% interest from the date of the plaintiff’s tender. (4) Senate Bill 1912 exempts units of local government, the State of Illinois, and state employees. Parties may agree to some other procedure if they wish. It passed the Senate yesterday and is in the House.

House Bill 2269

Topic: 
Real estate documents and thumbprints
Real estate documents and thumbprints. House Bill 2269 (Evans, D-Chicago; Napoleon Harris III) extends the sunset date for requiring a thumbprint of the transferor in a Cook County residential real estate transaction from July 1, 2013 to July 1, 2018. Passed the House and on third reading in the Senate.

Senate Bill 2306

Topic: 
Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act
(Radogno, R-Lemont; Mautino, D-Spring Valley) makes an exemption to existing law that prohibits an employer from requesting or requiring an employee or prospective employee to provide a password to gain access to the employee’s or prospective employee’s account or profile on a social networking website. If the password or access sought by the employer relates to a professional account and not a personal account, nothing in the provisions otherwise prohibits an employer from complying with a duty to screen employees or applicants before hiring or to monitor or retain employee communications as required under Illinois insurance laws or federal law or by a self-regulatory organization as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Passed the Senate and in the House on third reading.

Senate Bill 1044

Topic: 
Collection law changes
(Silverstein, D-Chicago; Lang, D-Skokie) makes four changes to collection practice. (1) Allows enforcements (Wage deduction orders, pay orders and turnover orders) to continue beyond seven years without revival. (2) Allows service of garnishments by certified mail. (3) Makes the recording of foreign judgments as liens on real estate. (4) Clarifies that a court in a citation proceeding may enter any order that could be entered in a non-wage garnishment and that this change is declaratory of existing law. Passed the Senate and now in the House.