Articles Posted in Contract Litigation

by

Three Illinois workers and two public worker unions waited for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on a carbon copy of their union-fee dispute. The case they were waiting on from the Supreme Court was Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. Because of the death of Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin G. Scalia, there was 4-4 split on the issue of whether mandatory payment of union fees for nonmember public workers is a First Amendment violation.

Because of the spit decision,  the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in Friedrichs stands, but does not create a national precedent.

“Our case is in a strong position to be the next case on this topic that the Supreme Court takes up,” said attorney Jacob H. Huebert of the Liberty Justice Center, which represents the three plaintiff workers challenging whether union fees should be paid for nonmembers.

Continue reading

by

Jose Adame paid $145,000 for a house that was being sold by joint tenants, Arnold and Arthur Lynch. There was a problem with the warranty deed that Arnold signed in June 2005.

In 2002, Arnold was in a coma following a car accident. The judge appointed James Brya as plenary guardian of Arnold’s estate and person. Arnold eventually regained consciousness. But the guardianship was never canceled. This meant that the warranty deed signed by Arnold, who was still under the court’s guardianship orders, was invalid or void.

Arnold died intestate ten months after the closing, leaving Arthur as the sole heir. In 2009, the Cook County public guardian was appointed as plenary protector of Arthur’s estate and person.

Continue reading

by

On Oct. 28, 2013, Robert Skahill signed a contract with Metropolitan Properties & Development Inc. The contract called for him to buy the property from Metropolitan for $3.1 million.

Skahill was required to put down $50,000 as earnest money of which $5,000 was due on the signing of the contract and the remaining $45,000 to be paid following the Nov. 18 inspection.

He Skahill paid $5,000, but never paid the remaining $45,000 in earnest money.

Continue reading

by

Alena Hammer owned and resided in a house located in Villa Park, Ill. Her mortgage was serviced by AmTrust Bank until AmTrust failed and was taken over by the FDIC in November 2009. The mortgage did not include an escrow account, and Hammer paid her real estate taxes and property insurance separately.

Hammer, 65, entered into a loan modification agreement with the FDIC as receiver for AmTrust in June 2010. She had been laid off from her job the year before. Hammer’s mortgage loan was then transferred to the defendant Residential Credit Solutions (RCS) in August 2010. RCS began rejecting the plaintiff’s monthly mortgage payments in September 2010 and refused to acknowledge the existence of the loan modification agreement.

RCS then pursued two separate foreclosure actions against Hammer despite the fact that she was still up to date on her monthly payments as required under the loan modification agreement.

Continue reading

by

Cynthia DeCornmier suffered serious injuries when she fell from her motorcycle on a motorcycle training course. Before the beginning of the training course, DeCornmier signed a release of all claims that may have resulted from or arising out of her participation in the training course. The release document stated in bold letters that it covered all claims she may have, including without limitation, all claims resulting from the negligence of those involved in the course.

In spite of the release that was signed in advance of the motorcycle training course, she filed a lawsuit against Harley-Davidson and Gateway Harvey-Davidson alleging that they were negligent and reckless by directing her to perform motorcycle maneuvers on a range that was icy and slippery. In the lawsuit, DeCornmier maintained that the liability release document that she signed in advance was unenforceable against claims of gross negligence or recklessness.

The defendants Harley Davidson and Gateway Harley-Davidson, filed motions for summary judgment, which the trial judge granted dismissing DeCornmier’s case.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Supreme Court has reversed the Illinois Appellate Court in a case centering on an application for legal malpractice insurance. In this case, one of the partners of the law firm of Tuzzolino and Terpinas (T&T) filled out a renewal form for legal malpractice with ISBA Mutual for himself and for the firm. In the application, he was asked whether there were any circumstances that would give rise to an unreported legal malpractice claim. The attorney who filled out the form answered “no.” In fact, a legal malpractice claim had already been brought against one of the firm’s attorneys, Mr. Tuzzolino, but was not yet reported to the firm’s

insurer.

The attorney who filled out the form, Mr. Terpinas, did not sign his name to the form. He claimed to have become aware of the claim against Mr. Tuzzolino about a month later and then reported the claim to ISBA Mutual.

As ISBA was then on notice of the claim and the errant application form, it filed a lawsuit for rescission of the insurance policy in March 2009. There were cross-motions for summary judgment filed and the trial court granted ISBA’s motion for summary judgment. The trial judge found that ISBA was entitled to rescission of the policy in its entirety and that it had no duty to defend Terpinas or the law firm because of the errantly completed form.

Continue reading

by

In 1986, Nina Willoughby operated a small business in which she sold retail clothes in a rented store. That year, she and Louis Fideli took out a $315,000 loan and purchased the store with other properties. The store property was kept solely in Fideli’s name. However, in 2003, Willoughby missed several mortgage payments; in 2004, the bank sued and foreclosed on her shop.

Fideli made Willoughby co-owner and then sole owner of the property after which she received a loan of $577,000 from the refinancing. John Heffron helped Willoughby with the transaction. Fideli received no compensation for transferring the property to Willoughby. The property was valued at $1.2 million in a loan application.

In June 2006, Fideli filed a lawsuit against Willoughby claiming that she had promised to repay him 50% interest in the property once she had avoided the foreclosure action. He charged her with unjust enrichment.

Continue reading

by

In October 2006, Stericycle Inc. entered into a contract with RQA Inc. to buy a segment of its business for $8 million.

Stericycle acquired the unlimited right to use RQA’s software. In addition, the two companies entered into a non-competition agreement. In 2010, the two companies contracted again, this time entering into an asset purchase agreement for $18 million.

One of the assets purchased was RQA’s “Recall and Retrieval Business Services Unit,” which was called the RR assets. The agreement made note that Stericycle would be refunded a portion of the purchase price if Stericycle did not achieve certain pre-set revenues.

Continue reading

by

Late in 2002, the developer of 1717 S. Prairie Ave. in Chicago, Ill., retained the defendant Hansen & Hempel Co. to complete the masonry work for a 23-story condominium complex. When the building was nearly finished in March 2004, it started to experience water leakage. The condominium association, Board of Directors of the Prairie District Homes Tower Condominium Association, hired an engineering firm to design and implement a repair that was estimated to cost over $6,500,000.

Because of the report on the defects to the building, the association filed a lawsuit wherein the case was tried to a jury on the sole issue of breach of implied warranty of habitability.

The plaintiff board of directors of the condominium association contended that 90% of the through-wall flashing in dams installed by the defendant masonry company were either missing or installed improperly and claimed that because of those material defects it allowed water to penetrate the inner cavity of the building.

Continue reading

by

Larry Fabian was hired in 2001 by Cantor Fitzgerald to be a broker at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. In 2007, he was transferred to BGC, which was a spinoff company of Cantor Fitzgerald.

In 2008, Fabian was named as a partner of “Founding Partner No. 69.” According to Fabian, he earned 100,393 “founding partner units” which could later be converted into common stock of the company.

On March 27, 2009, Fabian quit working for BGC to work for another securities firm. Shortly after leaving BGC, Fabian initiated arbitration before the Chicago Mercantile Exchange where he received $121,758 in commissions that he was owed from Cantor Fitzgerald. This did not include any reimbursement for his “founding partner units.”

Continue reading