Tag: priority

R. Kelly’s Royalty Account Nabbed by Sex Assault Judgment Creditor

Midwest Commercial Funding, LLC v. Kelly, 2022 IL App (1st) 210644 shows the harsh results that can flow from the failure to follow a statute’s service requirements to the letter.

There, dueling creditors fought over song royalties paid to disgraced R&B singer R. Kelly. Heather Williams sued the singer for sexual abuse and obtained a $4M default judgment against him in March 2020. About four months later, Midwest Commercial Funding, LLC (“MCF”), a commercial landlord, was awarded a $3.5M judgment for unpaid rent under a commercial lease against the singer.

Both creditors issued supplementary proceedings to enforce their respective judgments.

The Chronology

On August 17, 2020, Williams mailed a citation to discover assets to Sony – the music company that held a royalty account for the singer. Two days later, MCF sent its own citation by both regular mail and e-mail. MCF e-mailed the citation to one of Sony’s in-house lawyers with whom MCF had prior dealings.

On August 24, 2020, Sony’s in-house lawyer acknowledged receipt of MCF’s citation. (The record is unclear whether Sony’s counsel meant the August 19, 2020 e-mailed or regularly mailed citation.) August 24, 2020 is also the date that Williams mailed citation was delivered to Sony.

When MCF and Williams learned they had served simultaneous citations, they each filed adverse claims in their respective cases: Williams’s personal injury case and MCF’s lease breach action.

Trial Court Ruling

The trial court found that based on Supreme Court Rule 12(c), MCF’s electronic service was complete on day of transmission (August 19, 2020) while William’s “snail-mail” service was complete August 21, 2020 – four days after mailing. Because of this, the supplementary proceedings court found that MCF’s citation lien took precedence over Williams’s and ordered Sony to pay MCF (to the exclusion of Williams) until the judgment was satisfied.

The First District’s Reversal

Williams’s key argument on appeal was that she had a superior lien to Kelly’s royalty account as plaintiff’s e-mail citation did not perfect service under the law.

Reversing the trial court, the First District noted that once a citation is served on a judgment debtor, a judgment lien is perfected on all assets of the debtor that are not otherwise exempt under the law. The Court then wrote that when a citation is served on a third party, the judgment liens all assets of the debtor in the third party’s possession or control. A perfected lien is superior to any later-attaching lien. [Para 7]

The Court rejected MCF’s argument that Williams lacked standing to challenge service of MCF’s citation on Sony. It found Williams was not trying to vicariously assert Sony’s right to proper notice of the citations. Instead, Williams was asserting her prior interest in Kelly’s royalty account because Plaintiff’s e-mailed citation did not perfect service of its citation under Illinois law. The Court added that a contrary ruling would deprive any creditor of a chance to assert a paramount lien upon assets in a third-party respondent’s possession and allow a citation respondent to arbitrarily decide priority among competing creditors. [¶ 14]

The Court then analyzed Supreme Court Rule 11’s text to determine if e-mail service can perfect a citation lien. Under a plain reading of the Rule – titled “Manner of Serving Documents Other Than Process and Complaint on Parties Not in Default in the Trial and Reviewing Courts” – the Court found it contemplates e-mail service of documents only after a party has appeared. As a result, Rule 11 does not provide for e-mail service of documents on a party who has not appeared in the case before the court. Here, Sony had not appeared in either underlying case. [¶ 19]

Looking to Black’s Law Dictionary for guidance, the Court defined the “process” referenced in Rule 11’s title as an initiating case document, like a summons or writ, which triggers a party’s duty to respond.

The Court likened a third-party citation to discover assets to a summons. It held that “absent service of the citation, such party has no duty to appear, nor could the court subject such party to the sanctions provided in Section 2-1402 for noncompliance.”

Since the failure to respond to a third-party citation subjects a respondent to the threat of contempt and sanctions, the Court found that supplementary proceedings against a third party like Sony must be accompanied by service of process and statutory special notices. [¶ 20] As a result, MCF’s e-mailed citation was not proper service under Illinois law and did not lien the royalty account. Since Williams mailed her citation to Sony two days before MCF mailed its citation, Williams’s lien on the account trumped MCF’s.

Conclusion

This case illustrates in sharp relief how a judgment creditor plays with proverbial fire by not personally serving a citation (or at least serving it by certified mail – return receipt requested)

Since a citation to discover assets is the opening, operative document that first activates a recipient’s duty to respond, the citation is tantamount to a summons or writ and beyond the scope of Rule 11’s e-mail service provisions.

 

 

Judgment Creditor and Debtor’s Lawyers Duke It Out Over Equity in Home – ND IL

A law firm’s failure to scrutinize its client’s transfer of property to a land trust backfired in Radiance v. Accurate Steel, 2018 WL 1394036.

The case presents a priority fight between the plaintiff judgment creditor and the law firm who defended the debtor in post-judgment proceedings.

The Relevant Chronology

August 2013 – Defendant debtor transferred the Property to an irrevocable trust;

March 2014 – Plaintiff’s predecessor recorded its money judgment against defendant;

June 2014 – The law firm agrees to represent defendant if she mortgaged the Property to secure payment of attorney fees.

June 2015 – The law firm records a mortgage against the Property;

March 2018 – The court voids the 2013 transfer of the Property into a land trust as a fraudulent transfer.

The Trial Court’s Decision

The court ruled that the Property reverted back to the debtor and was no longer protected from its creditors. The court also found the law firm lacked actual or constructive notice that the creditor’s prior judgment lien could wipe out the firm’s mortgage.

As a result, the Court found the law firm met the criteria for a bona fide purchaser – someone who gives value for something without notice of a competing claimant’s right to the same property.

Reversing itself on plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, the Court first noted that recording a judgment gives the creditor a lien on all real estate owned in a given county by a debtor. 735 ILCS 5/12-101.

Illinois follows the venerable “first-in-time, first-in-right” rule which confers priority status on the party who first records its lien.  An exception to the first-in-time priority rule is where a competing claimant is a bona fide purchaser (BFP). A BFP is someone who provides value for something without notice of a prior lien on it.

Here, the law firm unquestionably provided value – legal services – and lacked notice of the bank’s judgment lien since at the time the firm recorded its mortgage, the title to the real estate was held in trust. Where a creditor records a judgment against property held in a land trust, the judgment is not a lien on the real estate. Instead, it only liens the debtor’s beneficial interest in the trust. (See here  and here.) These factors led the Court originally to find that the Firm met the BFP test under the law.

Reversing itself, the Court found the law firm was on inquiry notice that it’s mortgage could be trumped by the plaintiff’s judgment lien.

Inquiry notice means “facts or circumstances are present that create doubt, raise suspicions, or engender uncertainty about the true state of title to real estate.” In re Thorpe, 546 B.R. 172, 185 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2016)(citing Illinois state court case authorities).

A mortgagee has a responsibility not only to check for prior liens and encumbrances in the chain-of-title, but also to consider “circumstances reasonably engendering suspicions as to title.” Id.

In its reconsideration order, the Court noted as badges of fraud the plaintiff’s recording its judgment lien more than a year before the law firm’s mortgage and the ample proof of the debtor’s pre-transfer financial struggles.

The Court found the law firm was apprised of facts – namely, debtor’s financial problems, aggressive creditors, and gratuitous transfer of the Property into a land trust – that obligated it to dig deeper into the circumstances surrounding the transfer.

Afterwords:

Radiance and the various briefing that culminated in the Court’s reconsideration order provide an interesting discussion of creditor priority rules, law firm retainer agreements, trust law fundamentals and fraudulent transfer basics, all in a complex fact pattern.

The case reaffirms the proposition that where property is held in trust, a judgment lien against a trust beneficiary will not trump a later recorded judgment against the trust property.

However, where real estate is fraudulently transferred – either intentionally or constructively (no value is received, transferor incurs debts beyond her ability to pay, e.g.) – a creditor of the transferee should think twice before it transacts business with a debtor and delve deeper into whether a given property transfer is legitimate.

 

 

Prior Charging Order Trumps Later Divorce Court Order Involving Restaurant LLC Payouts

The Third District Appellate Court answers some important questions concerning the priority of competing creditors’ rights in the assets of a common debtor and the nature of appellate jurisdiction in FirstMerit Bank v. McEnery, 2014 IL App (3d) 130231-U.

There, a creditor obtained a $1.8M judgment against a defendant who had interests in several restaurant LLC ventures (the “LLCs”).  The creditor then moved for and received a charging order against all current and future distributions flowing from the LLCs until the judgment was satisfied.  The effect of the charging order was to place a lien or “hold” on the defendant’s distributions.  (See http://paulporvaznik.com/charging-orders-judgment-debtor-llc-member/5961).

A couple years later, defendant’s wife obtained an order in a divorce case that gave her a 50% interest in the LLCs.  About a year after that (divorce case) order, the trial court (presiding over the underlying suit) granted the plaintiff’s “turn over” motion (motion to require defendant to turn over future LLC distributions to the plaintiff/judgment-creditor.

The disputed issue: what took precedence?  The charging order against the LLCs or the later divorce court ruling giving defendant’s wife a 50% interest in the LLCs?  The trial court found that the prior charging order took priority over the defendant’s wife’s interest in the LLCs.  Defendant’s wife appealed.

Held: Affirmed.  Plaintiff’s charging order take priority over defendant’s wife’s interests in the LLCs

Reasons:

The Court first held that the trial court’s turn over order didn’t conflict with the divorce court order giving the wife a 50% share of the LLCs since that later order wasn’t “final” and appealable.

– Illinois Supreme Court Rule 301 provides that every final judgment is appealable as of right;

An order is final where it either terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits or disposes of the rights of the parties – either the entire controversy, or a separate branch of the litigation;

– A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the entry of a final order or within 30 days after entry of the order disposing of the last pending post-judgment motion;

– Where multiple parties and claims are involved, a party seeking an appeal must request a Rule 304(a) finding (that there is no reason to delay enforcement of or appeal from an order) from the trial judge;

– An order entered in a citation proceeding under Code Section 2-1402 is final when the citation petitioner is in a position to collect against the judgment debtor or third party or the petitioner has been foreclosed from doing so

(¶¶ 30-33)

Here, the divorce court order granting the defendant’s wife a 50% share in the LLCs – while entered before the turn over order – wasn’t final because it didn’t terminate the divorce case.  There was no order of marital dissolution and the divorce case continued for further status.  As a result, the divorce court’s 50% share order was subordinate to the trial court’s charging order and later turn over order.

Take-away:

This case rewards aggressive creditor enforcement steps.  By charging (liening) the debtor’s LLC interests, the creditor was in a position to take “first dibs” on the LLC distributions to the debtor, even though a court order later gave the debtor’s spouse a 50% share in the LLCs. 

The case also cements the proposition that a charging order impresses a lien on a debtor’s LLC distributions and that this charging lien will take primacy over any later judgment or lien filing related to the same LLC distributions.