|

As Naperville, Oak Brook, Wheaton, and Chicago business trial lawyers with substantial experience in shopping center claims, we were interested to see a recent decision by the First District Court of Appeal on the obligations of people who guarantee a lease. A change in the lease and a directed verdict at trial do not relieve a couple of their liability as guarantors of a commercial lease, the court has ruled. In Chicago Exhibitors Corporation v. Jeepers! Of Illinois and Swento, 1-06-3313 (Aug. 30, 2007), the court ruled that a guaranty agreement written to survive changes to the lease is enforceable even if the lease is assigned to a new tenant who changes it without the guarantor’s approval.

Harvey and Cherry Swento owned a business that leased space from a predecessor landlord to Chicago Exhibitors Corporation (CEC). To sweeten that lease, the Swentos in 1991 personally guaranteed their lease payments and all of their other obligations as tenants, with a clause specifying that the guaranty would survive changes to or assignment of the lease. In 1997, they sold their business to Jeepers! of Illinois, Inc. and executed an agreement in which Jeepers! indemnified them from losses stemming from their personal guaranty. Jeepers! then failed to pay its rent, causing CEC to demand an amendment to the lease that reaffirmed the Swentos’ personal guaranty. CEC declined to recognize the transfer of lease obligations from the Swentos’ company to Jeepers! until rent was paid in full and Jeepers! executed its own guaranty.

Jeepers! never did take on the guaranty, but it failed to pay its rent again several times. In an effort to avoid eviction, it agreed to several changes to the lease in January of 2001. The Swentos did not sign this amendment, even though it called for the ratification of all guarantors. When CEC eventually sued Jeepers! for unpaid rent and repairs, it included the Swentos as guarantors. In the trial, the Swentos asserted that the January 2001 amendment was a material change that discharged them from their obligations as guarantors; CEC successfully moved in limine for a ruling that it was not. The parties then agreed to move straight to the damages phase of the trial, so the judge granted a directed verdict on liability. The Swentos were eventually found liable for unpaid rent and damages as well as attorney fees. They appealed the in limine motion, the directed verdict and the award of attorney fees.

Continue reading ›

|

As Chicago class action attorneys, our firm has been able to help many Illinois tenants protect their rights under a special state law that not every renter knows about. The Illinois Security Deposit Interest Act requires many Illinois landlords to pay their renters the interest on security deposits. The law applies to landlords of buildings with 25 or more rental units, and to deposits held six months or more. Under those circumstances, the law requires landlords to pay interest on security deposits once a year, after the end of the yearly rental agreement, except when the renter owed unpaid rent. Landlords who willfully fail to do this can be sued for the amount of the withheld interest, as well as attorney fees and court costs.

That was the case in Wang v. Williams and Royal Rentals, 343 Ill.App.3d 495, 797 N.E.2d 179, 277 Ill.Dec. 832 (Sept. 10, 2003). Zhiyuan Wang of Carbondale sued his landlord, Royal Rentals, for failing to return his security deposit, failing to pay interest during the two years he rented from Royal, consumer fraud and breach of contract. The trial court dismissed his interest claim and his breach of contract claim, both of which were based on the Security Deposit Interest Act, because Wang’s lease included a provision stating “TENANTS agree to waive right to interest on security deposit.” Wang appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal.

On appeal, Royal Rentals argued that legal rights, including Wang’s rights under the Security Deposit Interest Act, can be waived when the right in question is conferred only for the benefit of individuals rather than the public. The court found this unconvincing. It pointed out that the Security Deposit Interest Act protects the rights of renters, a class of people. In support, it cited several cases, including Gittleman v. Create, Inc., 189 Ill. App. 3d 199, 545 N.E.2d 237, 240 (1989), a similar case in which tenants sued their landlord for a security deposit refund and interest. That lease had a provision reading “It is understood that the security deposit is net of security deposit interest, if any.” That court found for the tenants, saying the provision was intentionally vague about how interest should be paid and suggesting that the landlord used that vagueness to try to circumvent the Security Deposit Interest Act.

Continue reading ›

|

As Chicago business trial attorneys with substantial experience in disputes involving shopping centers, our firm was interested to see a recent Fourth District Court of Appeal decision allowing a shopping center to go through with its lease despite a restrictive covenant in a land sale by its predecessor. In Regency Commercial Associates v. Lopax, 4-06-0332 (May 4, 2007), the appeals court upheld the trial court’s ruling that the business at issue was not covered by the covenant, and that starting the lease while the case was still pending did not bar it from requesting a declaratory judgment.

Regency Commercial Associates, LLC and Lopax, Inc. are companies that own neighboring parcels of land in Savoy, Ill. The prior owner of Regency’s land, Arbours Development Limited Partnership, sold Lopax its land, which Lopax then leased to a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchisee. The sales contract between Lopax and Arbours restricted Arbours from allowing another “fast-food restaurant … or restaurant facility whose principal food product is chicken[.]” It also lists the types of businesses allowed, which include “casual dining.” Regency later purchased Arbours’ rights under the contract.

When Regency wanted to lease to a Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant, it negotiated with Lopax, arguing that the restaurant is “casual dining” and not fast food. Lopax disagreed, saying it believed the contract restricts any restaurant that primarily serves chicken. Regency filed for declaratory judgment, asking the court to find that Buffalo Wild Wings is not fast food and that the covenant restricts only fast-food restaurants that primarily sell chicken. Finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact to try, the court denied Lopax’s motion to dismiss.

Continue reading ›

|

As Chicago class action attorneys with a focus on consumer rights and consumer protection law, we know that renters in Chicago are fortunate to be protected by a law requiring landlords to pay interest on the renters’ own security deposits once a year, as long as the tenant stays for more than six months. Section 080 of the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (PDF) also specifies that landlords must return security deposits, minus unpaid rent or reasonable costs of repairs, within 45 days of the tenant’s departure. Unlike with the corresponding state law, this is true regardless of the number of units the landlord owns. If a landlord fails to comply, the tenant has the right to sue for twice the amount of the deposit, plus interest and attorneys’ fees.

The ordinance also applies even if the landlord did not willfully (that is, intentionally) withhold the payment. That provision was established by the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Lawrence v. Regent Realty Group, 307 Ill.App.3d 155, 717 N.E.2d 443, 240 Ill.Dec. 350 (1999). In that case, Aurelia Lawrence sued her landlord for withholding interest on a pet deposit. At trial, the court decided that a pet deposit is a security deposit for the purposes of the law (rather than a fee or charge). But because the landlord didn’t willfully refuse to pay interest on that pet deposit, it declined to impose the penalty of twice the deposit plus interest and attorney fees. Lawrence moved for a new trial, which was denied, and appealed to the First District.

In its analysis, the appeals court noted that it did not need to decide whether the landlord actually did willfully fail to pay; what mattered was whether the ordinance required willfulness in the first place. In order to require willfulness, the court wrote, a law must be penal (intended to punish) rather than remedial (intended to make the victim whole). Both sides agreed that the case turned on the issue of penal versus remedial. The court first decided that its decision should not be controlled by Szpila v. Burke, 279 Ill. App. 3d 964, 665 N.E.2d 357 (1996), in which the appeals court decided that a tenant was entitled to damages once rather than for each separate violation of the ordinance. In that case, the First District said, it found willfulness because to do otherwise would give a result that was out of proportion to the violation and unjust. A similar case, Namur v. Habitat Co., 294 Ill. App. 3d 1007, 691 N.E.2d 782 (1998), was dismissed because it did not address the question at issue here.

Continue reading ›

|

New guidelines for fighting fraud have just been released by three leading professional organizations. “Managing the Business Risk of Fraud: A Practical Guide” is sponsored by the ACFE, The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). Principles for establishing effective fraud risk management, regardless of the type or size of an organization, are outlined in the guide.

Download “Managing the Business Risk of Fraud”

Our commercial litgation attorneys work closely with auditors, accountants, forensic accountants and certified fraud examiners to determine the extent of the damages your business has suffered due to fraud. We bring suit to recover the lost funds. Our experienced business and commercial litigation attorneys with offices in or near Naperville, Wheaton, Oak Brook and Chicago have helped businesses and individuals recover substantial losses in individual or class action lawsuits arising from business fraud by vendors, employees and others. To review a summary of the business and fraud lawsuits we have handled click here. To contact us for a free consultation about business fraud or other business litigation issues fill out the form on the left side of this blog or click here.

|

Our Chicago, Naperville, Wheaton and Oak Brook business trial lawyers won an important procedural victory in a business dispute involving a closely held business. In short, we were able to convince an Illinois trial court that an attorney’s appearance should be stricken after being added to a case, we argued, because it appeared the new attorney could have been added to force the recusal of the judge, the attorney’s former law partner.

The underlying case was a high-stakes financial dispute in a closely held business. It had been litigated for six years, but was delayed when the defendants added a new lawyer to their team. This lawyer was the former law partner of the judge assigned to the case, who had already put substantial time and effort into the matter. However, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, the judge immediately recused himself when the new lawyer, the former partner, was added. Our position was that it could appear that this was precisely what the defense had intended. In fact, the new lawyer was added two days after three rulings on motions that the new judge called “hotly contested,” including rulings unfavorable to the defense.

Another attorney for the defense was a recognized expert in legal ethics, we argued, so the defense clearly must have known that the judge might recuse himself. Furthermore, the defense admitted that it had discussed the possibility of recusal with the client. And finally, the new lawyer had chosen what we alleged was a non-standard way to notify the court of his addition. Rather than asking for leave of court to move for the addition, which would have allowed the parties to discuss the addition in open court, he simply sent his appearance directly to the judge. The trial court held this was contrary to both the rules of court and the usual practice. All of this showed that it appeared that the attorney might have been added to force a change of judges, we argued. For those reasons, we moved to disqualify the new attorney.

Continue reading ›

|

A consumer fraud case here in Chicago met an interesting end in late September. In Trujillo v. Apple Computer, No. 07 C 4946, 2008 WL 4368937 (N.D.Ill., Sept. 22, 2008) lead plaintiff Jose Trujillo filed a proposed class action against Apple and AT&T Mobility, the iPhone’s service provider. Trujillo contended that Apple and AT&T did not disclose a de facto service fee of $79 plus shipping for the iPhone’s battery, which must be replaced after 300 charges. That claim failed when the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to Apple and AT&T on Sept. 23 on the merits of Trujillo’s claims. However, as Chicago, Naperville and Oak Brook consumer rights and consumer fraud attorneys, we are very interested in a decision from the same court on the day before handing a victory to consumers. The court decided to not compel the mandatory binding arbitration required in Trujillo’s contract with AT&T, finding that contract procedurally unconscionable under Illinois state law.

According to court documents, AT&T was the only wireless phone carrier for the iPhone when Trujillo purchased the phone in 2007. (Without a service provider, the iPhone’s telephone function will not work.) Trujillo activated a service plan with AT&T online, through Apple’s iTunes software, which directs the user to AT&T’s Web site. In order to sign up, the user must click a box indicating that he or she has read and agrees to AT&T’s service agreement. The service agreement is many pages, and in fact, displays as multiple separate pages on AT&T’s Web site. If the user does not check the box indicating that he or she has read this agreement, that user cannot sign up and will not have access to all of the iPhone’s functions.

In court papers filed earlier in the case, AT&T argued that Trujillo had the opportunity to read the service agreement when he signed up for service through iTunes. It also said he had access to the service agreement before this, in two separate ways: in paper booklets at the Apple store and online, on the AT&T Wireless Web site. But in later supplementary papers, it admitted that neither of those statements was true. The paper booklets, it turned out, were not available in the Apple store, though they may have been available in an AT&T store that Trujillo later visited to have a credit check done. The court’s opinion also noted that a footnote in the new papers said the applicable terms of service were not available online after all, though an obsolete version was available through the Web site’s search function. The true terms of service were available when Trujillo signed up through iTunes, it said, but in a small window, with the language relevant to arbitration about two-thirds of the way through.

Continue reading ›

|

Chicago and Oak Brook-based Lubin Austermuehle has recently been working on a proposed class action consumer protection case with national reach, in tandem with colleagues in Maryland. Our case alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a federal law regulating when and how credit reporting agencies may provide information about consumers to third parties like marketing companies. The FCRA requires that credit agencies may only give out consumers’ information if they have written permission or to companies that will extend a “firm offer of credit” to the consumers.

Our proposed lead plaintiff received a flyer offering him an automotive loan from a company that turned out to allegedly have nothing to do with the offer. That is, there was no firm offer of credit, in violation of the FCRA. It’s important that our plaintiff suffered no actual financial damage due to this privacy violation, fortunately. However, under the FCRA, he doesn’t need to if the violation of the law was “willful.” Instead, he may sue for “statutory damages,” an amount of money set by law, as well as the cost of attorneys’ representation and any punitive damages the court decides to impose to punish illegal or very unethical behavior by the defendant.

The statutory damages authorized by the FCRA are very small by the standards of modern litigation — $100 to $1,000 per person. In fact, this amount is so small that it might discourage both plaintiffs and their lawyers from pursuing a case, given the small reward. However, a proposed class action changes that landscape dramatically. In a class action, plaintiffs with the same complaint share the same lawyers, in essence pooling their resources. In doing so, they also pool the money they stand to win, from which the lawyers are paid. This allows them to move forward with a claim they might otherwise have had to abandon — giving them greater access to justice.

Continue reading ›

|

A recent case of ours includes a motion to disqualify attorneys for the defense under Rule 3.7 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. Part (b) of that rule states that a lawyer may not represent a client in a case where he or she may be called as a witness to give testimony prejudicial to the client. We moved for an evidentiary hearing on this subject, because our underlying contentions included the contention that the lawyers for the defense witnessed the intentional torts that underlay the case.

Illinois law takes a motion to disqualify an attorney very seriously. Disqualifying a lawyer is considered drastic under state law, because it touches on basic rights by destroying the client’s relationship with the lawyer of his or her choosing. Schwartz v. Cortelloni, 177 Ill.2d 166 (1997). For that reason, an evidentiary hearing to determine what evidence is relevant and admissible is generally either necessary or wise. City of Kalamazoo v. Michigan Disposal Service, 125 FSupp2d 219 (WD Mich 2000). In fact, some appeals courts have found that a lack of an evidentiary hearing is sufficient to allow them to question a trial court’s decision.

However, Illinois and federal courts have held that an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary when the facts are not disputed, or when investigation is unlikely to provoke an admission that one side has ulterior motives. Robinson v. Boeing Co., 79 F3d 1053 (11th Cir 1996). The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in In Re BellSouth Corp., 334 F3d 941, 962 (11th Cir 2003), supporting Robinson, laid down factors for judges to consider when considering disqualifying an attorney for alleged “judge shopping.” These include “the fundamental right to counsel, the court’s docket, the injury to the plaintiff, the delay in reaching decision, the judicial time invested, the expense to the parties objecting and the potential for manipulation or impropriety.”

Continue reading ›

|

In a Chicago breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty case, the Illinois First District Court of Appeal has ruled that an insurance company may sue a bank for allowing embezzlement from one of the insurer’s clients. Continental Casualty Company v. American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, No. 1-07-0627 (Sept. 25, 2008).

Continental Casualty Company is the assignee of General Automation, Inc. GAI was the victim of $1.32 million worth of embezzlement by an accountant, Lawrence Cohn, who deposited $370,000 of the stolen money into his own account at American National Bank. (He also embezzled by paying his client’s money directly to the IRS to cover his own taxes.) The checks drew on GAI’s corporate account, also at ANB. After Cohn was caught, his former accounting firms settled with GAI, but the bank did not. Continental Casualty, the insurer for one of Cohn’s former firms, sued ANB as GAI’s assignee for allowing the fraudulent deposits, for breach of contract and violation of the Illinois Fiduciary Obligations Act.

The trial court dismissed the case on statute-of-limitations and insufficiency grounds. The appeals court reversed and remanded, but the trial court again stopped the case, granting summary judgment to ANB because the Illinois Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act bars settlement requests from a settling party to a nonsettling party. This was the subject of the instant appeal.

Continue reading ›
Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW

Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.

Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Lubin Austermuehle, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design