John Hundley

Individuals who are mistakenly dunned by debt collectors have standing to seek relief under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), a federal appeals court ruled recently. However, debts not arising from consensual consumer transactions for goods or services are
not “debts” covered by that act, another appeals court has ruled.

The Obama Administration’s Home Affordable Mortgage Program (“HAMP”) does not contain a
federal private right to sue for violation of its terms, but it also does not preempt otherwise viable state law claims which incorporate terms and standards of the federal program, a federal appeals court in
Chicago ruled last month.

The Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law, 735 ILCS 5/15-1101 et seq . (“IMFL”), has been amended to
require mortgagees to say aye or nay to requests that they approve “short sales” of residential real
estate that is in foreclosure.

The murky waters surrounding alleged “promissory fraud” and “letters of intent” received
noteworthy explications from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently.

The judicial estoppel doctrine, which has emerged as one of the most potent weapons against bankruptcy fraud in federal courts, finds equally fertile ground in Illinois’ state courts, a recent Appellate Court decision shows

The effect of broad authority-granting clauses in powers of attorney (“POAs”) for property has been called into question by a recent decision of the Illinois Appellate Court.

Lawyers who accept checks and then promptly wire-transfer part of the funds to clients or others out of
the country are exposed to substantial losses, a series of recent federal court cases in Northern Illinois
demonstrates.

The federal “Defense of Marriage” Act, Pub. L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, codified in pertinent part at 1
U.S.C. § 7 (“DOMA”), has received an unpleasant welcome from an unexpected quarter – the nation’s
bankruptcy courts.

Persons who share privileged information with others as part of a business transaction may find that they have waived the privilege as to all communications on the subject matter of the shared information, a
panel of the Illinois Appellate Court ruled late last month.

In the 30 years since the Illinois Supreme Court first recognized an action for retaliatory discharge
(Palmateer v. Int’l Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124 (1981), that tort has had a checkered past.