Commercial Banking, Collections, and Bankruptcy

In the Matter of Clark

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Bankruptcy
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 12-1241 & 12-1255 Cons.
Decision Date: 
April 23, 2013
Federal District: 
W.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Reversed
Dist Ct. erred in reversing Bankruptcy Court order finding that debtors’ inherited IRA worth approximately $300,000 did not represent “retirement funds” in hands of debtors, and thus was not exempt from distribution to creditors under section 522(b)(3)(C). While Dist. Ct. found that any money representing “retirement funds” in decedent’s hands must be treated in same way in successors’ (debtors’) hands, Ct. of Appeals held that said funds were not exempt since inherited IRAs represent opportunity for debtor to currently spend funds and thus are not savings reserved for use after debtor stopped working.

Senate Bill 1912

Topic: 
Claim for money damages
(Raoul, D-Chicago) makes several changes to the settlement of a claim for money damages. (1) Requires the settling defendant to tender a release within 14 days of the settlement. (2) If court approval of the settlement is required, it requires the plaintiff to timely tender to the settling defendant of a copy of the court order approving the settlement. (3) Requires the plaintiff to tender to settling defendant documentation about a known third-party lienholder or subrogation interest. (4) Requires a settling defendant to pay all sums due to the plaintiff within 21 days of tender of the executed release and lienholder documentation. (4) Awards interest under Section 2-1303 of the Code of Civil Procedure for failure to pay within 21 days from plaintiff’s tender of the executed release unless good cause is shown otherwise. (5) Senate Bill 1912 doesn’t apply to actions against the State, State employees, or anyone else who may be indemnified under the State Employee Indemnification Act. It is on third reading in the Senate.

House Bill 2832

Topic: 
Fraudulent real estate transactions
(Lang, D-Chicago) allows a recorder of deeds to establish and use a “Fraud Referral and Review Process” for deeds and instruments that the recorder reasonably believes are fraudulent, unlawfully altered, or intended to unlawfully cloud or transfer the title of any real property. It creates a list of 19 criteria for the recorder to consider in determining whether the document is fraudulent. If the recorder reasonably believes the document may be fraudulent after this review, the recorder must refer the instrument to an administrative law judge for review. The recorder must place a Notice of Referral in the Property Index identifying this document, document number, and the date of the referral. The recorder must also notify the last owner of record. The ALJ must schedule a hearing within 10 business days from receipt of the referral. If the ALJ believes by a preponderance of the evidence that the document is fraudulent, the ALJ must issue a judgment to that effect. The recorder must record that judgment with the notation stating that the fraudulent document may not affect the chain of title of the property in any way. Passed the House and in the Senate.

ERISA

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
ERISA
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 11-3055
Decision Date: 
April 22, 2013
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that defendant-owner of withdrawing employer that incurred $3.6 million in withdrawal liability under ERISA was also liable for said withdrawal liability, after finding that defendant had engaged in unincorporated trade or business under common control of withdrawing employer. All trades or businesses within common control of withdrawing employer are treated as single employer for purposes of joint and several liability, and defendant’s conduct in leasing property to withdrawal employer, where said property served as business location of withdrawing employer, qualified as trade or business under section 1301(b)(1) of Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendment Act for purposes of imposing personal liability on defendant. Moreover, defendant’s provision of management services as independent contractor in selling and winding down golf course also qualified as trade or business under section 1301(b)(1).

House Bill 2646

Topic: 
Condominium Property Act
(McAsey) does three things to resolve the Act's ambiguity that allows condominium associations to recoup income lost during the lengthy foreclosure of a condominium unit. (1) Clarifies that this Act applies to a purchase at judicial foreclosure sale (other than by a mortgagee) and a purchase from a mortgagee that acquired title through a judicial foreclosure, a consent foreclosure, a common-law strict foreclosure, or the delivery of a deed in lieu of foreclosure. (2) Clarifies and caps the total amount the purchaser may be liable for—no more than the unit's unpaid regular monthly assessments for the nine-month period immediately preceding the judicial foreclosure. This cap includes attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the association during this nine-month period because of the nonpayment of these assessments. (3) Requires that the amount of this unpaid obligation must be included in certain notices in the Mortgage Foreclosure Article and the Condominium Property Act. On second reading in the House.

Burke v. 401 N. Wabash Venture, LLC

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Contract
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 11-3208
Decision Date: 
April 10, 2013
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for failure to state cause of action plaintiff’s complaint seeking rescission of contract for purchase of yet-to-be-built condominium and two parking spaces in Trump Tower on grounds that developer’s decision to put parking spaces on sixth floor lowered value of his investment and increased amount of maintenance fees plaintiff would be required to pay. Plaintiff failed to establish any material change in contract where contract contemplated that placement of parking places on sixth floor was possibility. Ct. further found that implied promise of good faith and fair dealing on part of defendant was sufficient to defeat plaintiff’s claim that instant contract was unenforceable due to lack of mutuality even though parties had different remedies for opposing party's breach of contract. Moreover, Ct. rejected plaintiff’s claim that instant contract violated Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act by failing to provide plaintiff with information regarding defendant’s ability to terminate contract.

Krieger v. Educational Credit Management Corp.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Bankruptcy
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 12-3592
Decision Date: 
April 10, 2013
Federal District: 
C.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded
Dist. Ct. erred in reversing Bankruptcy Judge order that discharged debtor’s student loan debt after finding that debtor established undue hardship if said debt was not discharged in her bankruptcy proceeding. Record showed that debtor could not presently or in foreseeable future pay student loans, and that plaintiff lived with parent in rural area, where few jobs were available, and lacked Internet access and transportation to assist her in job search.

In re: Draiman

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Bankruptcy
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 12-3888 et al. Cons.
Decision Date: 
April 8, 2013
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Reversed
Bankruptcy Judge erred in finding that appointment of interim trustee within two years after filing of instant bankruptcy petition served to extend limitation period for filing adversary proceedings under section 546(a)(1) of Bankruptcy Code, even though interim trustee was not appointed permanent trustee until after two-year limitations period for filing adversary proceedings had elapsed. Section 546(a)(1) provides for one year extension of applicable limitations period for filing adversary proceedings only when permanent trustee is appointed within initial two-year limitations period, and thus instant adversary proceedings were untimely. Fact that instant permanent trustee was also interim trustee did not require different result.

Harris N.A. v. Hershey

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Contract
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 11-1550
Decision Date: 
March 29, 2013
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant breached his agreement to guarantee plaintiff’s $15.5 million loan to limited liability company of which defendant was managing member. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that plaintiff fraudulently induced him into signing agreement by promising to assist limited liability company with sale of company’s investments, where defendant produced no writing containing alleged promises as required by Ill. Credit Agreement Act. Ct. also found that Rule 38 sanctions were appropriate for defendant having filed frivolous appeal where defendant conceded that limited liability company was in default on loan, and where defendant failed to present coherent argument that would provide even colorable basis for reversing Dist. Ct. judgment or come to grips with applicable law and facts.

Jackson v. Bank of America Corp.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Banking
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 12-3338
Decision Date: 
March 29, 2013
Federal District: 
S.D. Ind., Indianapolis Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiffs’ action alleging that defendant-bank negligently evaluated their ability to repay $282,500 home mortgage loan, and that said loan contract was unconscionable. Plaintiffs could not state valid negligence claim where plaintiffs alleged nothing more than typical mortgagor-mortgagee relationship that was insufficient to give rise to any duty owed by defendant to plaintiffs. Moreover, plaintiffs could not establish that instant mortgage contract was unconscionable under Indiana law where: (1) plaintiffs used mortgage broker to obtain instant loan at 5.875 percent interest; (2) plaintiffs had complied with terms of loan for seven years; and (3) there was nothing in record to indicate that plaintiffs did not understand terms of loan or that instant mortgage process was irregular.