Advice For Homeowners Contracting With Builders

This question comes up fairly often and I would like to address it.

If you are going to renovate your home or condominium and you retain a contractor, make sure that the contractor is bonded and insured.

If he/she is not insured, you are acting at your own risk.  Your homeowner's insurance will not cover any errors or omissions by a contractor.  By the time the problem comes up (the roof leaks, the pool leaks, the deck leaks, the tiles don't stay down, the wood warps) it will be too late.  You can sue, but it is unlikely that such a contractor will have any money with with to satisfy the judgment.

Again, insist on a bonded and insured contractor.  Ask for a certificate of insurance.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

Read More

Tax Season Reminder - Deal In Writing With The IRS!

Recently, a client contacted us about problems with the IRS.


The client had made a payment, but the payment was not properly credited by the IRS.  The client had spent many hours on the telephone with the IRS, but the calls had not resolved the problem.


Please understand this:  when dealing with the IRS - ALWAYS, ALWAYS CORRESPOND IN WRITING.


By writing I mean a letter with a stamp, preferably certified.  Also keep a copy of the letter.  The IRS is required to respond to correspondence.  It is not bound by what an employee said on the 800 number line.  Indeed, the employee may not even be required to keep a log of calls and what happened on the phone calls.  In sum, calling the IRS is a complete waste of time and should be avoided at all costs.


If the IRS sends a notice that you failed to pay a tax or made a mistake on your return, respond with a letter to the IRS.  Be professional and polite.  Don't waste time calling the IRS on the phone.  The organization is a 19th century dinosaur.


If you send a check to the IRS, include the tax i.d. number and identify the tax year that the check relates to.


Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

www.clintonlaw.net

Read More

Illinois Adopts A New Citation System For Cases Decided By its Courts

Illinois Supreme Court « Illinois Lawyer Now

Illinois is finally abandoning the old reporting system for Illinois cases. Apparently, no more books will be issued. Instead, the Illinois Courts will issue opinions online with a new citation system. This will also abolish the often-confusing distinction between published and unpublished opinions.

Read More

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Clause In Credit Card Agreement

The case is captioned CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, No. 10-948.


Over the past 20 years, the United States Supreme Court has upheld arbitration clauses from many challenges.  The latest, upholding an arbitration clause in a credit card agreement, will force those who want to make claims against credit card companies to file arbitration proceedings.  Business groups currently prefer arbitration to claims in the court systems.  How this will work over the long-term in anybody's guess.


One result is that the plaintiff's class action against the credit card company will soon be a thing of the past.  Each wronged plaintiff must now file for arbitration.


Sometimes defendants are shocked when they force people to arbitration.  The fees can be steep and most arbitration organizations make the defendants pay the bulk of the fees.  Often the fees exceed the amount at issue.


The undersigned has acted as counsel in cases where the arbitrator's fees exceeded the total amount due to the plaintiff.  Many times, litigants, particularly employers, can be stunned by the size of such fees.


Edward X. Clinton, Jr.


'via Blog this'

Read More

Illinois Supreme Court Upholds Noncompetition Agreements

RELIABLE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY v. Arredondo, Ill: Supreme Court 2011 - Google Scholar:

This case was recently decided by the Illinois Supreme Court to "correct" a misconception that Illinois no longer recognizes that a noncompetition agreement must support a legitimate business interest of the employer.

The Court described the three-prong test as follows: "¶ 17 "The modern, prevailing common-law standard of reasonableness for employee agreements not to compete applies a three-pronged test." BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 712 N.E.2d 1220, 1223 (N.Y. 1999). A restrictive covenant, assuming it is ancillary to a valid employment relationship, is reasonable only if the covenant: (1) is no greater than is required for the protection of a legitimate business interest of the employer-promisee; (2) does not impose undue hardship on the employee-promisor, and (3) is not injurious to the public. Id.;Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 187 cmt. b, § 188(1) & cmts. a, b, c (1981).^[2] Further, the extent of the employer's legitimate business interest may be limited by type of activity, geographical area, and time. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 188 cmt. d (1981). This court long ago established the three-dimensional rule of reason in Illinois and has repeatedly acknowledged the requirement of the promisee's legitimate business interest down to the present day."

The Court explained that Illinois recognizes the legitimate business interest test. It noted: "¶ 43 In sum, the legitimate business interest test is still a viable test to be employed as part of the three-prong rule of reason to determine the enforceability of a restrictive covenant not to compete. However, the two-factor test created in Kolar, in which a near-permanent customer relationship and the employee's acquisition of confidential information through his employment are determinative, is no longer valid. Rather, we adopt the position of Justice Hudson's special concurrence, which is: whether a legitimate business interest exists is based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the individual case. Factors to be considered in this analysis include, but are not limited to, the near-permanence of customer relationships, the employee's acquisition of confidential information through his employment, and time and place restrictions. No factor carries any more weight than any other, but rather its importance will depend on the specific facts and circumstances of the individual case."

The court then remanded the case to the Circuit Court to allow that court to apply the proper test.

Comment: it appears that this opinion resolves a debate in the caselaw concerning the legitimate business interest test. Although it is far from certain, considering the legitimate business interest of the employer would appear to strengthen the employer's ability to enforce a reasonable noncompetition agreement.

'via Blog this'

Read More

Illinois Company Held Liable For Agent Who Wrongfully Obtained Employee's Phone Records

Lawlor v. North American Corp. of Illinois, 949 NE 2d 155 - Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 4th Div. 2011 - Google Scholar:

This is an Illinois case in which the plaintiff, Kathleen Lawlor, obtained an award of compensatory and punitive damages against her former employer.

The court characterized Lawlor's claim as follows: "The parties engaged in four years of bruising discovery, but the testimony at the six-day trial was relatively uncomplicated. Lawlor was aggrieved that North American, through surreptitious means, acquired her mobile and home phone records in a failed effort to prove that she breached the company's noncompetition agreement. Painted with a broad brush, Lawlor presented evidence at trial to the effect that North American, through counsel and at least two independent investigators, set about the tasks of personal surveillance and getting her private phone records."

Again the bad conduct of the defendant supported the Appellate Court's decision to reinstate the punitive damages award of $1.75 million.

The court wrote: "Here, we conclude that the jury's award of $1.75 million was reasonable given North American's reprehensible conduct. The nature and the inappropriateness of the intrusive conduct in meddling with plaintiff's personal records was sufficiently malevolent to warrant punitive damages, especially considering that North American on multiple occasions, over a five-month period, specifically utilized the wrongfully obtained phone records. While several of its officers and employees testified that they were unaware of the methodology of how the records were obtained and whether unethical or illegal means were utilized, North American points to no evidence showing it was uncomfortable with the receipt or the use of this private information. To the contrary, North American employees testified that they had no hesitancy in using the phone records and that they never inquired how they were obtained. In terms of the size of the award, the jury heard that North American's net worth was approximately $50 million. It can scarcely be argued that the amount awarded by the jury was egregiously high, given both the nature of the conduct and the extent of defendant's net worth."

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

'via Blog this'

Read More

Seventh Circuit Weighs In On Unjust Enrichment Debate

Cleary v. PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2011 - Google Scholar:

The Seventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of an "unjust enrichment" class action against Philip Morris. Plaintiffs alleged that Philip Morris was unjustly enriched because it conspired to conceal the facts about the addictive and dangerous nature of cigarettes.

The Seventh Circuit frames the issue as follows: "A preliminary matter argued by the parties is whether Illinois law recognizes an independent cause of action for unjust enrichment, or whether unjust enrichment must always be tied to another underlying claim found in tort, contract, or statute."

The Court then notes that the Illinois cases are not entirely clear on whether unjust enrichment is a separate cause of action or whether it must be tied to an underlying cause of action, such as fraud or breach of fiduciary duty.

The Seventh Circuit summarizes the conflicting cases as follows: "The Illinois Supreme Court appears to recognize unjust enrichment as an independent cause of action. In Raintree Homes, Inc. v. Vill. of Long Grove, 807 N.E.2d 439, 445 (Ill. 2004),the plaintiffs were seeking the refund of overpaid fees under an unjust enrichment theory. No other underlying cause of action was alleged. The Court noted: "Here, plaintiffs have no substantive claim grounded in tort, contract, or statute; therefore the only substantive basis for the claim is restitution to prevent unjust enrichment." Id. Similarly, in another case before theIllinois Supreme Court, Indep. Voters v. Ill. Commerce Comm'n, 510 N.E.2d 850, 852-58 (Ill. 1987), the plaintiffs had filed suit to recover refunds for excessive utility charges and their claim for restitution of the charges was not tied to another cause of action. Finally, the IllinoisSupreme Court has articulated the elements of unjust enrichment without reference to a separate underlying claim in tort, contract, or statute. See HPI Health Care Servs., 545 N.E.2d at 679; see also Peddinghaus v. Peddinghaus, 692 N.E.2d 1221, 1225 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)(ruling that Illinois recognizes an independent cause of action for unjust enrichment based on HPI Health Care Services). From these cases, it appears that the Illinois Supreme Court recognizes unjust enrichment as an independent cause of action.

In contrast to this case law, there is a recent Illinois appellate court that suggests the opposite, namely, that an unjust enrichment claim cannot stand untethered from an underlying claim. See Martis v. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co., 905 N.E.2d 920 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). The Martis court stated the following:

The doctrine of unjust enrichment underlies a number of legal and equitable actions and remedies. Unjust enrichment is not a separate cause of action that, standing alone, will justify an action for recovery. Rather, it is a condition that may be brought about by unlawful or improper conduct as defined by law, such as fraud, duress, or undue influence, and may be redressed by a cause of action based upon that improper conduct. When an underlying claim of fraud, duress or undue influence is deficient, a claim for unjust enrichment should also be dismissed.

Id. at 928 (internal quotation and citations omitted) (emphasis added)."

The Seventh Circuit then offers its own suggested resolution to the debate: "Without setting out a comprehensive treatise on Illinois unjust enrichment law in an attempt to resolve the apparently conflicting language of the Raintree Homes and Martis cases, we suggest one way to make sense of it. Unjust enrichment is a common-law theory of recovery or restitution that arises when the defendant is retaining a benefit to the plaintiff's detriment, and this retention is unjust. What makes the retention of the benefit unjust is often due to some improper conduct by the defendant. And usually this improper conduct will form the basis of another claim against the defendant in tort, contract, or statute.^[2] So, if an unjust enrichmentclaim rests on the same improper conduct alleged in another claim, then the unjustenrichment claim will be tied to this related claim—and, of course, unjust enrichment will stand or fall with the related claim. See, e.g., Ass'n Benefit Servs. v. Caremark Rx, Inc., 493 F.3d 841, 855 (7th Cir. 2007) ("[W]here the plaintiff's claim of unjust enrichment is predicated on the same allegations of fraudulent conduct that support an independent claim of fraud, resolution of the fraud claim against the plaintiff is dispositive of the unjust enrichment claim as well.")."

After offering this suggestion to resolve the conflicting cases, the Seventh Circuit affirms the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim because they failed to allege a detriment tied to the wrongful conduct of the defendant.

The Illinois Supreme Court may ultimately weigh in on this issue. The Seventh Circuit's opinion offers a possible resolution to the debate.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

Read More