Pawn Broker Wins Priority Dispute Against Creditor Involving Debtor’s Harley Davidson Motorcycle

In Coal City Red-Mix Company v. Kavanaugh, 2014 IL App (3d) 130332-U, two competing creditors – a judgment creditor and a pawn shop – each claimed superior rights to the debtor defendant’s Harley Davidson motorcycle (the “Bike”).  The plaintiff got a default money judgment against the defendant in February 2012 and issued post-judgment citation proceedings to discover whether the defendant had assets to apply to the judgment.  About seven months later, and before he appeared in response to the citation, the defendant secretly pawned the Bike to a local pawn shop for a $3,500 loan.  The pawn shop took possession of the Bike but didn’t take title to it.  The defendant kept the Bike’s title.

When the plaintiff discovered that the defendant pledged the Bike, the plaintiff served a third-party citation on the pawn shop and sought a court order requiring the pawn shop to turn the Bike over to the plaintiff.  After an evidentiary hearing, the Court ruled that the plaintiff had a superior interest in the Bike and the pawn shop appealed.

Held: Reversed.  The pawn shop’s interest in the Bike trumps the plaintiff’s.


In finding for the pawn shop, the Court noted that under Illinois judgment collection rules, a creditor like the plaintiff can issue a citation not only to the debtor but also to a third party (like the pawn shop) who has property belonging to the debtor  in its possession.  735 ILCS 5/2-1402(m)(1)-(2).  Once a citation is served, it become a lien on a debtor’s non-exempt personal property.  But a citation lien doesn’t impact the rights of respondents in property prior to service of a citation, and it also doesn’t affect the rights of bona fide purchasers or “lenders without notice” of the citation.  735 ILCS 5/2-1402(m).

Here, the plaintiff properly directed a third party citation to the pawn shop since it had personal property – the Bike – that belonged to the debtor in its possession.  The pawn shop argued that it was a bona fide purchaser since the debtor signed a power of attorney that allowed the pawn shop to transfer title to the Bike if the debtor failed to repay the pawn shop loan.  Illinois law defines a bona fide purchaser as someone “who takes title in good faith for value without notice of outstanding rights or interests of others.”  (¶ 15).  The parties’ intent (and not formalistic labels) determines whether ownership in personal property is transferred.  In this case, the Court found that the pawn broker wasn’t a bona fide purchaser since it had only a possessory interest in the debtor’s Bike.  It never “took title” to it.  (¶¶ 16-17).

But the pawn shop still won the priority dispute.  That’s because it was a  “lender without notice” under Code Section 2-1402(m).

The Illinois Pawnbroker Regulation Act, 205 ILCS 510/0.01 (the Pawnbroker Act)  specifically defines a pawnbroker as an individual or entity that lends money on the deposit or pledge of physically delivered personal property (among other things). (¶23).  A pawn transaction is viewed as a “super secured loan transaction” where the lender (pawn shop) holds a borrower’s personal property as security for a loan.

Here, the pawnbroker was clearly covered by the Pawnbroker Act and so it met the statutory definition of a lender.  The pawn shop also lacked notice of the plaintiff’s prior citation lien since it didn’t find out about plaintiff’s judgment until the plaintiff served the third-party citation and sought the Bike’s turnover.

Since the pawn shop met the statutory definition of a “lender” and because it lacked notice of plaintiff’s prior judgment, it was a “lender without notice” under  Code Section 2-1402(m).  As a result, the plaintiff’s citation lien on the defendant’s property – including the Bike – didn’t affect the rights of the pawn shop.  The pawn shop had superior rights to the Bike over the plaintiff.

Take-away: I can relate to how frustrated the plaintiff creditor must have been in this case.  It followed the supplementary proceedings rules to the letter yet still lost out to a competing (and unwitting) claimant.  If I was in plaintiff’s position,  I think I would now focus my energies on trying to freeze the defendant’s bank account (if he has one), on serving a wage deduction summons on defendant’s employer (if he has a job) or attempting to levy on any of the defendant’s non-exempt personal property.  Either way, this case illustrates how arduous a task it is for a creditor to collect on a money judgment.


Release and Satisfaction of Judgment and Guaranty Liability – IL Law

ReleaseBrahos v. Chickerneo,  2014 IL App (2d) 130543-U, examines Illinois money damages rules, the extent of a guarantor’s liability and satisfaction-of-judgment requirements against the backdrop of a business dispute involving a failed car dealership.

The plaintiff got a multi-million dollar fraud judgment against multiple defendants that stemmed from a failed car dealership business venture.  In post-judgment proceedings, the dealership was sold and the sale proceeds satisfied plaintiff’s judgment against all defendants except for one.  That remaining defendant then moved to dismiss the citation proceedings and for satisfaction of the remaining judgment balance – about $600K.  The trial court agreed and ordered the judgment satisfied.  The plaintiff appealed.

Held: Reversed.  The $600,000 still owed the plaintiff on the money judgment was not satisfied by the bank releasing the investor guarantors from liability under the various dealership loans.


Reversing the trial court and finding that the plaintiff still could purse defendant for the balance of the money judgment, the Court applied several salient guaranty and release/satisfaction-of-judgment rules:

– Generally, the discharge of the principal obligation discharges the guarantor’s obligation;

Code Section 12-183 (735 ILCS 5/12-183) requires a judgment creditor to sign a release and satisfaction of judgment so that the debtor can record that release with the Court that entered the judgment

– the party seeking the release of a judgment bears the burden of proving that a judgment entered against him was released;

– a release is a contract and is governed by contract law;

– the contracting parties intention is determined by the plain language of the contract;

– it is only where a contract is ambiguous (reasonably susceptible to two opposing meanings) that evidence is allowed in to explain what the contracting parties intended;

– typically, a money judgment can only be satisfied by paying the judgment unless the parties agree otherwise.

(¶¶ 32-35).

The Second District sided with the plaintiff and found that his money judgment shouldn’t have been deemed satisfied by the trial court.  The plaintiff never agreed to release his money judgment against the defendant and there was no evidence that plaintiff agreed to accept a “noncash benefit”- namely, the release from his guarantor liability to the bank.

The Court also pointed to the promissory note that required defendant to pay the judgment’s remaining $600K to the plaintiff.  The bank’s release of the dealership investors from their loan and guaranty liabilities didn’t  affect the defendant’s note liability.

In addition, the dealership lender’s release of the various investors (including plaintiff) from their bank obligations didn’t mention plaintiff’s damage award against the remaining defendant. (¶ 35).

The defendant’s double recovery argument – that the plaintiff got a windfall having his guaranty liability to the bank released while getting paid $600K from the defendant – was also rejected. 

The Court found there was no double recovery because plaintiff was not getting paid twice for the same injury and the bank was not a “joint tortfeasor” with the defendant.  Instead, the bank was a third-party creditor. ¶ 37.


–  A release of judgment will be construed as written and not expanded beyond its clear terms;

– A creditor isn’t required to release a money judgment unless that creditor is paid or the parties agree otherwise.