2018

Just as decades of apparently settled law governing post-judgment collection methods were turned on their heads by a decision of the Appellate Court in Chicago last fall (see Sharp Thinking No. 160 (Oct. 2018)), decades of apparently settled law governing eviction jurisdiction were upended by that same court just as fall turned to winter last month.

A circuit court has jurisdiction to enforce its discovery orders despite the case having been closed and the usual 30-day jurisdictional period having passed, a panel of the Appellate Court’s Second District ruled recently.

The use of course-of-dealing practices to define contractual commitments is statutorily established in sales-of-goods cases governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (810 ILCS 5/1-303(d)-(g)), but may a party rely on such evidence in a case involving services not covered by the UCC?

Decades of apparently settled law governing post-judgment collection methods apparently were turned on their heads by a decision of the Appellate Court in Chicago last month.

Officers of a bank holding company “had no right – much less a duty – to pursue a course of action that directly contradicted” their Board of Directors’ “clear instructions.”

In manager-managed limited liability companies, the manager “alone” is responsible for the “management and conduct of the company’s business,” and he, “exclusively,” decides any matter relating to the company’s business.

Neither Supreme Court Rule 183 nor the rules on e-filing permit a court to backdate a filing when the lapse of the 30-day period under Supreme Court Rule 303 and 735 ILCS 5/2-1203(a) means that the Court has lost jurisdiction.

It is not necessary for the court in a foreclosure action to appoint a special representative for a deceased mortgagor when that mortgagor transferred all interest in the property to another before his death, a panel in the Appellate Court in Chicago has concluded.

A process server who is told flatly by the defendant’s spouse that the defendant does not live at an address need not make repeated attempts to serve the defendant at that address, a panel of the Appellate Court in Chicago has ruled.