Tag: illinois credit agreements act

The (Ruthless?) Illinois Credit Agreements Act

The Illinois Credit Agreements Act, 815 ILCS 160/1, et seq. (the “ICAA”) and its requirement that credit agreements be in writing and signed by both creditor and debtor, recently doomed a borrower’s counterclaim in a multi-million dollar loan default case.

The plaintiff in Contractors Lien Services, Inc. v. The Kedzie Project, LLC, 2015 IL App (1st) 130617-U, sued to foreclose on a commercial real estate loan and sued various guarantors along with the corporate borrower.

The borrower counterclaimed, arguing that a “side letter agreement” (“SLA”) signed by an officer of the lender established the parties’ intent for the lender to release additional funds to the borrower – funds the borrower claims would have gotten it current or “in balance” under the loan. The trial court disagreed and entered a $14M-plus judgment for the lender plaintiff.  The corporate borrower and two guarantors appealed.

Held: Affirmed

Rules/Reasoning:

The ICAA provides that a debtor cannot maintain an action based on a “credit agreement” unless it’s (1) in writing, (2) expresses an agreement or commitment to lend money or extend credit or (2)(a) delay or forbear repayment of money and (3) is signed by the creditor and the debtor. 815 ILCS 160/2

An ICAA “credit agreement” expansively denotes “an agreement or commitment by a creditor to lend money or extend credit or delay or forbear repayment of money not primarily for personal, family or household purposes, and not in connection with the issuance of credit cards.”  So, the ICAA does not apply to consumer transactions.  It only governs business/commercial arrangements.

The ICAA covers and excludes claims that are premised on unwritten agreements that are even tangentially related to a credit agreement as defined by the ICAA.

The borrower argued that the court should construe the SLA with the underlying loan as a single transaction: an Illinois contract axiom provides that where two instruments are signed as part of the same transaction, they will be read and considered together as one instrument.

The court rejected this single transaction argument.  It found the SLA was separate and unrelated to the loan documents.  The SLA post-dated the loan documents as evidenced by the fact that the  SLA specifically referenced the loan.  Conversely, the loan made no mention of the SLA (since it didn’t exist when the loan documents were signed).

All these facts militated against the court finding the SLA was part-and-parcel of the underlying loan transaction.

Another key factor in the court’s analysis was the defendants admitting that the SLA post-dated the loan (and so was a separate and distinct writing).  The court viewed this as a judicial admission – defined under the law as “deliberate, clear, unequivocal statement by a party about a concrete fact within that party’s knowledge.”

Here, since the SLA was not part of the loan modification, it stood or fell on whether it met the requirements of the ICAA.  It did not since it wasn’t signed by both lender and borrower.  The ICAA dictates that both creditor and debtor sign a credit agreement.  Here, since the debtor didn’t sign the SLA (it was only signed by lender’s agent), the SLA agreement was unenforceable.  As a consequence, the lender’s summary judgment on the counterclaim was proper.

Afterwords:

This case and others like it show that a commercially sophisticated borrower – be it a business entity or an individual – will likely be shown no mercy by a court.  This is especially true where there is no fraud, duress or unequal bargaining power underlying a given loan transaction.

Contractor’s Lien Services also illustrates in stark relief that ICAA statutory signature requirement will be enforced to the letter.  Since the borrower didn’t sign the SLA (which would have arguably cured the subject default), the borrower couldn’t rely on it and the lender’s multi-million dollar judgment was validated on appeal.

Illinois Credit Agreements Act and the Unclean Hands Defense – No Writing = Difficulty Defeating Breach of Guaranty Claim

handsAmerican Chartered Bank v. Cameron. 2014 IL App (1st) 132231-U, an unpublished First District case, glaringly illustrates the difficulty of defeating a lender’s breach of guaranty claim when the defenses are based on the lender’s oral promises.  The case also sheds light on the nature of the borrower-lender relationship and the contours of the unclean hands defense in the context of a breach of contract action.

The defendant guaranteed a commercial loan made to a business that defendant invested in. After the borrower defaulted, the plaintiff sued the corporate borrower and guarantor defendant and won summary judgment of nearly $150K. The guarantor appealed arguing the guaranty wasn’t enforceable.

Held: summary judgment for the bank affirmed. Defendant’s defenses are defeated by the Illinois Credit Agreements Act 815 ILCs 160/1, et seq. (ICAA) and the express language of the guaranty.

Reasons:

The Court rejected the guarantor’s defense based on the clear guaranty language that specified the bank didn’t have to first proceed against the loan collateral (the bank could immediately go after the guarantor).  The guaranty also had a non-reliance clause: the guarantor waived his reliance on verbal statements by the bank’s agents.

The ICAA also trumped the defenses.  The ICAA prevents a debtor (here, the guarantor) from suing or defending a suit under a “credit agreement” unless it’s in writing and signed by both creditor and debtor” 815 ILCS 160/2.

The ICAA defines a “credit agreement” as an agreement to lend money, extend credit or to delay or forbear repayment of money that is not for consumer (personal, family or household) purposes and that doesn’t involve credit cards. 815 ILCS 160/1(1).  ICAA Section 3(3) negates any claims based on a creditor’s promise to modify, amend or forbear from enforcing a credit agreement.  815 ILCS 160/3

Illinois courts construe the ICAA broadly and describe it as a strengthened Statute of Frauds (740 ILCS 80/0.01 et seq.) that bars all actions at all related to a credit agreement.  The ICAA case law makes clear that the statute prevents a borrower from alleging he relied on any oral statements of a lender.

Here, the guarantor’s claim that the bank agent made verbal misstatements to induce the execution of the guaranty was clearly governed and defeated by the ICAA.  The court also found the ICAA negated the defendant’s argument that the bank officer orally modified the guaranty terms.(¶¶ 33-35).

The defendant’s “unclean hands” defense also failed.  This defense, which posits that a litigant can’t take advantage of his own wrongful conduct, was premised on the claim that the bank breached a fiduciary duty to inform the defendant of the bank’s intention to enforce the guaranty if there was a loan default.  The Court rejected this defense for two reasons: first, the lender-borrower relationship is not a fiduciary one as a matter of law.  Additionally, unclean hands defense only applies in equity cases: it doesn’t affect legal (actions at law) claims. (¶¶ 38-40)

The other argument raised and rejected by the guarantor was that since he successfully opened a confessed judgment in favor of the bank, this was tantamount to a summary judgment-defeating fact question claimed that since the trial court found that he satisfied the standard for opening a confessed judgment under Rule 276, this was tantamount to a summary judgment-defeating fact question.

Afterwords:

Cameron illustrates the expansive applicability of the ICAA and how that statute will bar almost all claims and defenses related to a promise to lend money.  The case also clarifies that the unclean hands defense will only apply in an equitable case (e.g. an injunction, declaratory judgment suit, etc.); not in a garden-variety breach of contract claim for money damages.  Procedurally, the case’s lesson is that opening a confessed judgment involves different evidentiary standards than does showing a fact question sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.

 

 

Oral Contracts in Illinois – Are they Enforceable?

shakehandsYes.  Oral contracts are enforceable.  The main exceptions are contracts governed by the Statute of Frauds (SOF), which requires certain contracts to be in writing.  See 740 ILCS 80/1, 2; 810 ILCS 5/2-201.  The Illinois Credit Agreements Act (ICA) also requires certain agreements to lend money in a commercial setting be in writing. 815 ILCS 160/1 et seq.

I still use the mnemonic device I learned in my bar review course – MYLEGS  – to determine whether a writing is required.

M = “marriage” (contracts in consideration of marriage – i.e., “if you paint my house the color pewter, I promise to marry you”); Y =  “year” (contract can’t be performed in the space of one year must be in writing), L = “land” (contracts for sale of interest in land); E = executor (contracts with executors of estates) G = “goods” (over $500) and S is for “suretyship” (if a third party guarantees a debt, it must be in writing).

The Featured Case:  Rosenthal v. Battery Partners VI, LP, 2011 WL 10068993 (1st Dist. 2011), a factually dense case involving a dispute over an investment scheme, provides a good summary of Illinois oral contract law.

The Facts: Plaintiff trader sued two partnerships for breach of a verbal contract to pay plaintiff about $5 million as a finders fee after plaintiff introduced defendants to one of plaintiff’s trading contacts.

Plaintiff’s oral contract claim was based on some telephone conference calls during which defendants’ agents supposedly promised to pay plaintiff millions after defendants sold their exchange shares.  But when plaintiff ran afoul of British trading rules, defendants cut plaintiff out of the deal and refused to pay anything despite earning over $12 million from the sale of their shares.

The trial court entered summary judgment for the defendants on the basis that the alleged oral contract was unenforceable because it wasn’t in writing and it lacked consideration. 2011 WL 10068993, *5.

The Holding: The First District affirmed summary judgment for the defendants and found that the oral contract was unenforceable.

Reasoning:

In finding for the defendants (and denying recovery to the plaintiff), Rosenthal posits some key oral contract basics:

– where parties have assented to all oral contract terms, the mere reference to a future written document will not negate the existence of a valid oral contract;

– if the parties’ clear intent is that neither will be legally bound until the execution of a formal written agreement, no contract comes into existence: even where all the material terms are (verbally) agreed on;

– the parties’ conduct and statements after an oral agreement “may be decisive of the question whether a contract had been made;”

– The factors a court considers when examining whether parties to an oral agreement intended to later  reduce it to writing are (1) whether the contract is usually put in writing; (2) how detailed or simple the contract is; (3) the amount of money involved; (4) whether the oral agreement requires a formal writing to fully express the parties’ promises; and (5) whether the parties’ negotiations signalled that a written document would be forthcoming.  *7.

Applying these rules, the First District found that the alleged oral agreement was one typically reduced to writing since the agreement was factually complex and involved arcane pricing formulas.  The court also noted that   any oral agreement based on a single phone call was too flimsy to enforce in light of the high dollar value involved. and the resulting written contract.  The fact that a detailed writing that governed the subject matter of the oral agreement later materialized bolstered this finding. *8-9.

Take-aways: Oral contracts are generally enforceable in Illinois.  If contracting parties’ intent is to later reduce an oral agreement to writing, the parties should clearly say so.

The more convoluted a deal and the more money involved, the more likely the court will find a writing was intended and invalidate an oral contract claim.