John Hundley

First Mortgage Co. v. Dina, 2014 IL App (2d) 130567, holding that the issuance of a home mortgage by an entity that is not registered under the Residential Mortgage License Act (205 ILCS 635) voids the mortgage (see generally Sharp Thinking No. 116 (June 2014)), has been overturned.

The absence of significant common ownership between the alleged predecessor and successor dooms a creditor’s attempt to hold the latter responsible for the debts of the former under the “mere continuation doctrine,” a panel of the Appellate Court in Chicago has held.

Financial institutions subject to citations to discover assets had best not enter into loan agreements
with entities affiliated with the judgment debtor until the citation proceedings have been resolved

The Appellate Court in Chicago last month issued an opinion that sets the stage for widespread
condoning of supplementary proceeding respondents’ ignoring of supplementary proceedings papers.

Believing that “frivolous motions or appeals are more likely to be found in the mortgageforeclosure context” than in other areas of the law, a panel in the Appellate Court’s Third District has
issued a call that “it is incumbent upon the courts, both trial and appellate, to impose sanctions for . . .
frivolous conduct designed to help defendants remain in their home, with little regard for the law.”

No circumstances ever justify an attorney filing a bankruptcy petition, including its related schedules and statement of financial affairs, “without first obtaining a debtor’s actual signature on the documents,” a bankruptcy judge from the Central District of Illinois recently held

Mortgagees and their counsel had better pay close attention to the acceleration terms of their
mortgages before foreclosing as a result of a recent decision of the Appellate Court in Chicago.

The three-year statute of limitations of Uniform Commercial Code § 4-111 (810 ILCS 5/4-111) applies
to a lawsuit pleaded as a common-law breach-of-contract case if the claim is related to banking transactionsinvolving negotiable instruments, a panel of the Appellate Court in Chicago has reiterated.

The Appellate Court recently confronted a novel issue over whether a successor agent under apower of attorney owes a fiduciary duty to the principal before he becomes the attorney-in-fact.

Nothing prevents an amended complaint from naming as respondents in discovery persons who had been named as defendants in the original complaint, according to a 2-1 decision of a panel of the Illinois Appellate Court in Chicago.