AGRI-BEST HOLDINGS, LLC v. ATLANTA CATTLE EXCHANGE, INC, Dist. Court, ND Illinois 2011 - Google Scholar

AGRI-BEST HOLDINGS, LLC v. ATLANTA CATTLE EXCHANGE, INC, Dist. Court, ND Illinois 2011 - Google Scholar:

The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has held that a secured creditor has the right - under the Uniform Commercial Code - to step into the shoes of the debtor and pursue collection of outstanding receivables.

This entry cannot begin to do proper justice to the excellent opinion of the District Judge.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.
'via Blog this'

Read More

Corporate Law - LLC Statute Shields Member From Personal Liability

Carollo v. Irwin, Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 4th Div. 2011 - Google Scholar:

The Illinois Appellate Court recently decided the above-captioned case. The case is routine - plaintiff was to receive certain funds if a parcel of real estate did not sell in a specific time period. The court concluded that there was no sale, and thus the plaintiff was entitled to the additional money.

The Court also included a lengthy and thoughtful discussion of the Illinois Limited Liability Company Act - specifically the Act's provision regarding the personal liability of a member who signs a contract on behalf of the LLC.

The Court attempted to determine whether a third party - Scott Mason - who signed a contract on behalf of an LLC that was never formed could be held personally liable on that contract. The Court comments: "Second, we also hold that there was no sale because there was no enforceable contract due to the fact that there was no party who could be held liable as a buyer. The LLC was never formed and thus never ratified the contract on behalf of the LLC or gave Scott Mason authority to enter into the contract."

The Court then held that the Limited Liability Company Act gives greater protection to the person who signs a contract on behalf of an LLC that is never formed than a person who signs on behalf of a corporation that is never formed:

"48 Defendants argue that the articles of agreement were valid even if the unformed LLC could not be held liable because the individual who signed, Scott Mason, would then be personally liable. However, here there is an important distinction between corporations and LLC's that neither party recognizes which is dispositive of this issue. We explain that, by statute, as a matter of law Scott Mason cannot be personally liable.

¶ 49 Defendants contend that H.F. Philipsborn, Tin Cup Pass, and Estate of Plepel all stand for the proposition that courts will impose personal liability on individuals who incur corporate debts prior to corporate formation. However, we note that the result in H.F. Philipsborn andTin Cup Pass was the opposite of the result sought here by defendants; the corporations were held liable, not the individual, because the corporations were ultimately formed and adopted and ratified the contracts. See H.F. Philipsborn, 59 Ill. 2d at 472; Tin Cup Pass, 195 Ill. App. 3d at 851. In Estate of Plepel, on the other hand, the decedent's estate was liable because there was no evidence that the parties intended to hold the corporation liable, or that the claimants even knew they were dealing with a corporation. Estate of Plepel, 115 Ill. App. 3d at 807-08.

¶ 50 In determining whether a corporate officer has contracted in his own behalf, we apply the general rules of agency. Polivka v. Worth Dairy, Inc., 26 Ill. App. 3d 961, 966 (1974). The question of whether an agency relationship exists is normally a question of fact; however, a court may decide the issue as a matter of law if only one conclusion may be drawn from the undisputed facts. Ioerger v. Halverson Construction Co., 232 Ill. 2d 196, 202 (2008) (citingChurkey v. Rustia, 329 Ill. App. 3d 239, 243 (2002)). The common law rule is that where an agent signs contract in his own name and the contract nowhere mentions the existence of agency or the identity of the principal, the agent is personally liable and parol evidence is not admissible to rebut the presumption of the agent's personal liability. Bank of Pawnee v. Joslin, 166 Ill. App. 3d 927, 935 (1988). A corporate officer who signs his name on a contract, without more, is individually liable on the contract. 84 Lumber Co. v. Denni Construction Co.,212 Ill. App. 3d 441, 443 (1991).

¶ 51 On the other hand, when an agent signs a document and indicates next to his signature his corporation affiliation, then, absent evidence of contrary intent in the document, the agent is not personally bound. Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. Molinarolo, 223 Ill. App. 3d 471, 475 (1992) (citing Knightsbridge Realty Partners, Ltd-75 v. Pace, 101 Ill. App. 3d 49, 53 (1981)). Directors or other officers of corporations are not liable for the debts contracted in the name of, and on behalf of, the corporation and which are binding upon it unless they are expressly made liable by statute or unless they also contract on their own behalf. Polivka, 26 Ill. App. 3d at 966. "`One of the purposes of a corporate entity is to immunize the corporate officer from individual liability on contracts entered into in the corporation's behalf.'" People ex rel. Madigan v. Tang, 346 Ill. App. 3d 277, 284 (2004) (quoting National Acceptance Co. of America v. Pintura Corp., 94 Ill. App. 3d 703, 706 (1981)). However, an unauthorized agent purporting to enter into a contract for a principal is personally liable. Polivka, 26 Ill. App. 3d at 966.

¶ 52 Here, Scott Mason clearly indicated he was signing the articles of agreement on behalf of Cal City Apartments, LLC, thus seemingly insulating himself from liability. See Baker v. Daniel S. Berger, Ltd., 323 Ill. App. 3d 956, 969 (2001) (holding that the individual's signature on the face of the agreement was clear that he signed the agreement in his representative capacity on behalf of the corporation and therefore would not be personally bound). However, the LLC was never formed and so it never adopted and ratified the articles of agreement for deed. Thus, it would appear that Scott Mason should be liable on the contract, as he acted without authority of the LLC because the LLC was never formed and therefore never ratified his action in entering the articles of agreement.

¶ 53 However, there is an important statutory distinction between LLC's and corporations that provides members or managers of unformed LLC's with more protection from personal liability than officers of corporations in this context. Section 3.20 of the Business Corporation Act of 1983 specifically directs:

"All persons who assume to exercise corporate powers without authority to do so shall be jointly and severally liable for all debts and liabilities incurred or arising as a result thereof." 805 ILCS 5/3.20 (West 2006).

¶ 54 The Limited Liability Company Act had a provision similar to section 3.20 of the Business Corporation Act. Prior to its amendment, section 10-10 provided:

"(b) A manager of a limited liability company shall be personally liable for any act, debt, obligation, or liability of the limited liability company or another manager or member to the extent that a director of an Illinois business corporation is liable in analogous circumstances under Illinois law." 805 ILCS 180/10-10(b) (West 1996).

¶ 55 However, when the legislature amended section 10-10 of the Limited Liability Company Act in 1997, it specifically removed the provision that allowed a member or manager of an LLC to be held personally liable for the unauthorized exercise of corporate powers in the same manner as provided in the Business Corporation Act. Puleo v. Topel, 368 Ill. App. 3d 63, 69-70 (2006). See Pub. Act 90-424 (eff. Jan. 1, 1998) (deleting 805 ILCS 180/10-10(b) (West 1996)).

¶ 56 In addition, the remaining provisions of the Limited Liability Company Act provide that a member or manager is not liable for acting on behalf of an LLC:

"A member or manager is not personally liable for a debt, obligation, or liability of the company solely by reason of being or acting as a member or manager." 805 ILCS 180/10-10(a) (West 2006).

¶ 57 Section 10-10(a) of the Limited Liability Company Act provides the only means by which an individual can be liable for contracts entered into on behalf of an LLC:

"(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (d) of this Section, the debts, obligations, and liabilities of a limited liability company, whether arising in contract, tort, or otherwise, are solely the debts, obligations, and liabilities of the company." 805 ILCS 180/10-10(a) (West 2006).

¶ 58 Subsection (d) in turn provides that an LLC member can be liable to a third party for debts or obligations only if: (1) there is a provision to that effect in the LLC's articles of organization; and (2) the member has consented in writing to that provision. 805 ILCS 180/10-10(d) (West 2006).

¶ 59 Subsection (c) further provides that "[t]he failure of a limited liability company to observe the usual company formalities or requirements relating to the exercise of its company powers or management of its business is not a ground for imposing personal liability on the members or managers for liabilities of the company." 805 ILCS 180/10-10(c) (West 2006).

¶ 60 We have recognized the clear legislative intent to shield individuals from personal liability in transactions on behalf of LLCs, where the LLC did not exist because it was dissolved. In Puleo, we held that a managing member was not personally liable for debts that an LLC incurred after its dissolution because there was no evidence of a provision establishing the managing member's personal liability was contained in the LLC's articles of organization or that the managing member consented in writing to the adoption of such a provision, which are the requirements of section 10-10(d) of the Limited Liability Company Act. Puleo, 368 Ill. App. 3d at 68. We declined to imply into the Limited Liability Act a provision similar to section 3.20 of the Business Corporation Act that would hold an individual member liable for obligations incurred when the member was without authority because the LLC was not in existence. Puleo, 368 Ill. App. 3d at 69. We held that "[a]s we have not found any legislative commentary regarding that amendment, we presume that by removing the noted statutory language, the legislature meant to shield a member or manager of an LLC from personal liability." Puleo, 368 Ill. App. 3d at 69. Thus, other than the very limited circumstances specified in section 10-10(d), there is no individual liability for members for any debts and obligations entered into on behalf of an LLC even where, as here, such acts were unauthorized due to the fact that the LLC had not yet been formed.

¶ 61 Here, there is no evidence that the requirements of section 10-10(d) were met, and thus there is no basis for holding Scott Mason bound by the contract. While in Puleo the LLC was dissolved at the time the contract was entered into, whereas here the LLC was never formed in the first place, the holding of Puleo is equally applicable, as in both instances the LLC was not in existence at the time of contract. In this case it is undisputed that the LLC was never formed, and there is no evidence offered by defendants that there were articles of organization providing for Mason's liability, nor any writing in which Scott Mason agreed to be liable. See Puleo, 368 Ill. App. 3d at 68 (independent contractors could not establish a managing member's personal liability for debts that the LLC incurred after its dissolution without showing that a provision establishing the managing member's personal liability was contained in the LLC's articles of organization and that the managing member consented in writing to the adoption of such a provision). Thus, Scott Mason could not be held individually liable for the articles of agreement for deed because he is statutorily shielded from liability. Therefore, neither the unformed LLC nor Scott Mason could be held liable on the contract and the articles of agreement could not be enforced."

This is an interesting and thoughtful discussion on the Limited Liability Company Act that demonstrates a close reading of the statute.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

www.clintonlaw.net

'via Blog this'

Read More

Warning - Collection Scam

We have learned that certain scam artists are using our name and calling individuals to attempt to collect nonexistent obligations.  The calls are coming from area code 872.  We do not collect debts owed by individuals and warn anyone receiving such communications to disregard them and to notify local law enforcement.  We do not contact any individual debtors ever - so if someone is using our name to collect from individuals you can be certain that the caller is involved in a scam.

One of the numbers used was 872-213-9369.

Sadly, this scam has continued.  Now victims are being contacted by an edwardclinton@live.com.  This is not us and we do not collect from individuals or make any threats.

We have reported this to various law enforcement agencies to no avail.

Read More

Seventh Circuit Construes Written Contract With Confusing Handwritten Amendment

QUALITY OIL, INCORPORATED v. KELLEY PARTNERS, INCORPORATED, Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2011 - Google Scholar:

This is a classic case of contract interpretation. Lawyers often become alarmed when they learn that their clients have made handwritten amendments to their written contracts. Here Quality Oil and Kelley Partners entered into a transaction under which Quality loaned Kelley $150,000. The loan was to be forgiven over a five year period as Kelley purchased certain motor oil products from Quality.

The confusion was created when the clients added a handwritten clause to the Agreement as follows:

"On July 1, 2003, Quality Oil, an Indiana auto-lubricants distributor for Exxon Mobil Corp., and Kelley Partners, an independent operator of automotive quick-lube facilities in Illinois, entered into a "Product Payback Loan and Supply Agreement." Under the Agreement, which by its terms is governed by Indiana law, Quality Oil agreed to loan Kelley Partners $150,000 "at no cost," and Kelley Partners in turn agreed to purchase its motoroil requirements from Quality Oil.^[1] Specifically, in Paragraph 4 of the Agreement, Kelley Partners agreed to

purchase from Quality Oil . . . at least eighty-five percent (85%) of [Kelley Partners'] requirements of motor oils during the term of this Agreement. [Kelley Partners] further agrees to purchase not less than two hundred twenty-five thousand (225,000) gallons of Mobil motor oil and 225,000 Mobil branded filters within 60 months from the date hereof.

Immediately following this language in the typewritten contract is the handwritten notation that is central to Kelley Partners' appeal. It states as follows: "This Supply Agreement will terminate after 225,000 gallons and 225,000 filters of Exxon/Mobil is purchased or 60 months, whichever comes first." The president of Kelley Partners and owner/general manager of Quality Oil initialed this handwritten provision and signed the Agreement in two places."

Quality Oil sued Kelley and the district court entered summary judgment in favor of Quality Oil. The Seventh Circuit affirmed and explained its reasoning as follows:

"The same is true of Kelley Partners' interpretation of the contract at issue here. It would make no commercial sense for Quality Oil to forgive its loan to Kelley Partners after five years regardless of how much motoroil product Kelley Partners purchased. This was a loan and supply contract, after all. Under Paragraph 4 of the Agreement, Kelley Partners bound itself to purchase at least 85% of its motor-oil needs from Quality Oil during the term of the Agreement. Paragraph 6 and Exhibit A imposed a Premature Termination Penalty on any early termination, and Paragraph 7 required that if Kelley Partners sold its business, it was to assign its obligations to its successor or remain liable under the Agreement. Reading the contract as a whole and harmonizing all of its provisions shows that Kelley Partners' literal interpretation of the handwritten provision is commercially absurd."

Kelley argued that the contract expired in 60 months so it had no duty to repay the loan. The Seventh Circuit held that this was incorrect and would make the contract commercially unreasonable.

Comment: cases like this one cause corporate lawyers to tear their hair out - but the Court did an excellent job of deciphering the true meaning of the contract.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

Read More

The Necessary Steps To Collect a Business Debt

1. Before selling any goods or rendering a service, make the customer/debtor sign a written agreement, preferably one providing that the customer must pay legal fees if he does not pay.

2. Deliver the goods or service and make sure that the debtor acknowledges the receipt of same.

3. Invoice the debtor.

4. Send a reminder invoice.

5. Send emails or written correspondence to the debtor that support your position that the debtor accepted the goods and/or services.

6. Try to negotiate a resolution with the debtor, including offering a payment plan.

7. Initiate collection action.

By far the most important step is to document the transaction in writing so that the debtor cannot claim that the goods and/or services were not delivered.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

Read More

Asset Exchange II, LLC v. First Choice Bank, Illinois Appellate Court

In this recent decision of the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District, the Court rejected a claim by a borrower that the 365/360 interest calculation method violated the Illinois Interest Act. According to the Court, Asset Exchange is a limited liability company owned by "two sophisticated businessmen." On December 14, 2007, Asset Exchange entered into a commercial loan agreement with the Defendant Bank whereby the Bank agreed to loan $1,250,000 to Asset Exchange. The interest rate was 8.25%, computed on a 365/360 basis. The loan states: "'the annual interest rate for this Note is computed on a 365/360 basis; that is by applying the ratio of the annual interest rate over a year of 360 days, multiplied by the outstanding principal balance, multiplied by the actual number of days the principal balance is outstanding.'" Plaintiff claimed that, by using a year of less than 365 days, the Bank was wrongfully using a definition of "year" that was in violation of the Illinois Interest Act and thus charged and received more interest than was due. The Bank moved to dismiss on the ground that the Interest Act does not apply to commercial loans. The trial court agreed and the Appellate Court affirmed. The Appellate Court noted that prior Illinois decisions have held that the Interest Act does not apply to corporations. See Computer Sales Corp. v. Rousonelos Farms, Inc., 190 Ill. App. 3d 388, 392 (1989). The Appellate Court rejected the breach of contract claim because (a) the terms of the Note were unambiguous and (b) the Bank complied with the terms of the Note. Comment: this is a victory for Banks as the 365/360 interest calculation method is commonly used in commercial transactions. Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

Read More

What Statute of Limitations Applies to A Claim That A Mortgage Was Unconscionable?

Estate of Davis v. Wells Fargo Bank, 633 F. 3d 529 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2011 - Google Scholar



The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim against Wells Fargo Bank, which took over the servicing of a predatory mortgage loan.



The plaintiff asserted claims for unconscionability and fraud under Illinois law. The Seventh Circuit noted that the fraud and unconscionalbility claims were subject to a five-year statute of limitations. See 735 ILCS 5/13-205.



The dismissal of the fraud claim was affirmed by the Seventh Circuit on the ground that Davis disputed the charges and failed to pay them.



The Court explained: "On appeal, Mrs. Davis contends that the district court erred in not also considering the defendants' demands that she pay her loan, demands that continued even after the defendants knew that the Kankakee County court had ruled that her loan was based in part on Mortgage Express's fraud. We agree that overlooking this allegation was incorrect. Statements made to induce someone to pay a purported debt that they do not actually owe, if made with the requisite knowledge and intent, can support an allegation of fraud. See Hartigan v. E & E Hauling, Inc., 153 Ill.2d 473, 180 Ill.Dec. 271, 607 N.E.2d 165, 175-77 (1992) (allegations that contractor's letter sent to a metropolitan authority contained material misrepresentations as to contractor's compliance with minority business enterprise contract requirements, made for purpose of inducing authority's reliance in paying contract installment, supported allegation of common-law fraud). However, we agree with the district 537*537 court that Davis's fraud claim still fails for a different reason. Even though Mrs. Davis alleged that the defendants attempted to induce her to pay money that they knew she did not owe, Mrs. Davis did not allege that she had relied on the defendants' demands for payment or that she had suffered any damages as a result of those demands. To the contrary, with the help of her attorney, she fought those unjustified demands. Without reliance or damages, Mrs. Davis does not have a viable claim for fraud. We affirm the district court's dismissal of Mrs. Davis's fraud claim."



Comment: Illinois does not recognize attempted fraud. To sue for fraud the aggrieved party must allege damages.



The Breach of Contract claim of unconscionability was barred by the five-year statute of limitations.



The court reasoned: "Under Illinois law, a contract may be found to be unconscionable as a matter of law on either a "procedural" or "substantive" basis, or both. Razor v. Hyundai Motor America, 222 Ill.2d 75, 305 Ill.Dec. 15, 854 N.E.2d 607, 622 (2006). Procedural unconscionability refers to a situation in which a term is so difficult to find, read, or understand that the party could not fairly be said to have been aware she was agreeing to it. Procedural unconscionability also takes into account the party's relative lack of bargaining power. Razor, 305 Ill.Dec. 15, 854 N.E.2d at 622, citing Frank's Maintenance & Engineering, Inc. v. C.A. Roberts Co., 86 Ill.App.3d 980, 42 Ill.Dec. 25, 408 N.E.2d 403, 410 (1980). Substantive unconscionability, on the other hand, refers to contractual terms which are inordinately one-sided in one party's favor. Razor, 305 Ill.Dec. 15, 854 N.E.2d at 622, citing Rosen v. SCIL, LLC, 343 Ill.App.3d 1075, 278 Ill.Dec. 770, 799 N.E.2d 488, 493 (2003).



Mrs. Davis has not shown that the district court erred when it barred consideration of the formation of her mortgage contract in September 1999 on statute of limitations grounds. In this federal lawsuit, Mrs. Davis was not using the doctrine of unconscionability in its most familiar way, as an affirmative defense to bar enforcement of a contract or a particular term of a contract. See, e.g., Razor, 305 Ill.Dec. 15, 854 N.E.2d at 622-24 (holding that exclusion of consequential damages in limited warranty was not enforceable because it was unconscionable). Mrs. Davis instead sought damages from the successors in interest to the original lender. We do not address here whether unconscionability gives rise to a standalone claim for damages under Illinois law, as Mrs. Davis asserts here. We do not address that issue because even if such a claim is cognizable in Illinois, it is clear that such a claim would be barred by the five-year statute of limitations."



Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

Read More