The Supreme Court of Illinois recently reversed a trial court order in a case filed outside of Cook County denying a Cook County borrower’s petition challenging a foreclosure judgment as void for lack of jurisdiction, finding that a licensed or registered private detective may not serve process in counties with a population of two million or more – such as Cook County -- without special appointment under 735 ILCS 5/2-202.
Posts published by “Ernest Wagner”
Ernest Wagner practices in Maurice Wutscher's Commercial Litigation and Consumer Litigation groups, and leads the firm’s Insurance Recovery and Advisory group. Based in Chicago, he also supports the firm’s litigation matters in its Florida office. Ernest has substantial experience in various types of commercial and insurance recovery litigation. He has conducted more than 35 jury trials, and more than 150 arbitrations for plaintiffs and defendants. He has also successfully represented clients in numerous appeals, in various jurisdictions. Ernest earned his Juris Doctor from Emory University School of Law in Atlanta, Georgia, and his Bachelor of the Arts from the University of Iowa. For more information, see https://mauricewutscher.com/attorneys/ernest-p-wagner/
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently reversed a trial court judgment in favor of a tenant and against a foreclosing lender under the Keep Chicago Renting Ordinance (KCRO).
The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, recently affirmed a trial court order dismissing a borrower's attempt to vacate a default foreclosure judgment as untimely because the borrower's first attempt to undo the foreclosure, which was withdrawn without prejudice, did not toll the time to file the petition within 60 days from the borrower's first appearance in the case.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s order compelling arbitration, holding that a single website visit by a consumer long after she entered into a contract with a credit reporting agency (CRA) that contained a change-of-terms provision did not bind the parties to changed terms in the updated contract, including exempting some claims from binding arbitration, because the consumer did not allege that she was aware of the changed terms as required to assent to the new terms.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed a trial court order dismissing a consumer’s lawsuit holding that Georgia’s renewal statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-2- 61, did not save a claim that is otherwise time-barred under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently affirmed a trial court order confirming the sale of a foreclosed property, holding that a public notice of sale stating that the property contained a “single family residence” complied with the Illinois Foreclosure Law’s requirement to sufficiently describe “improvements on the real estate.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that a consumer’s contractual obligation to repay an overpayment in government grant money received by the debtor qualified as a “debt” under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) because it involved a consensual promise to repay in exchange for receipt of an item of value, and the subject of the transaction was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that a debt collection verification letter, which sought to collect interest on a credit card debt for months after the time when the bank that issued the card did not send monthly statements, was not "false" and would not have misled their attorney in violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently vacated a summary judgment order against a debtor on her claims against a debt owner and its debt collector for alleged violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the debtor did not suffer a concrete injury-in-fact traceable to the alleged statutory violations and therefore lacked the required Article III standing.
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently affirmed a trial court order dismissing a foreclosure counterclaim by two borrowers seeking rescission under the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., holding that section 1640(e)’s one-year statute of limitation for legal damages applied to bar the borrower’s section 1635 equitable claim, when the borrowers demanded rescission within three years of closing but did not file suit within one year after the lender failed to respond.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently dismissed an appeal for lack of Article III standing because the appellant did not allege the particularized injury necessary to confer standing and the co-appellant with standing settled and dismissed its appeal.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently reversed a trial court’s order sanctioning a consumer’s counsel for failure to promptly settle a lawsuit, but affirmed the trial court's order denying a motion to recuse because the trial court was not biased against the consumer.