Commercial Banking, Collections, and Bankruptcy

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.

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).