Rolewick & Gutzke, P.C. is Hiring

ROLEWICK & GUTZKE, P.C. is interviewing to hire a new associate attorney. They are looking for an attorney who has been admitted to the Illinois Bar at least 4 years and who has an interest in working in a general civil practice firm. They need a litigation attorney with trial experience in the areas of estate, probate, contract and shareholder disputes as well as plaintiff’s personal injury and malpractice.  

ROLEWICK & GUTZKE is a general practice firm presently consisting of six (6) full time attorneys. Although they handle some Cook, Will, and Kane County cases, as well as appear in Federal Court, their work is primarily concentrated in DuPage County. They represent clients in general corporate and commercial matters, business acquisitions and mergers, corporate litigation, personal injury and wrongful death, residential and commercial real estate transactions, estate planning, tax planning, and probate estates.

They ask that anyone who is interested in the position please mail or e-mail a resume, a transcript of their law school grades, a writing sample, job references, and salary requirements to the attention of Bruce Robinson as soon as possible.

Here is the whole complaint.

This is a copy of the lawsuit filed by Mrs. Donald Sterling against V. Stiviano. She alleges that Mr. Sterling transferred more than $2.5 million to the girlfriend. She wants it back because it was community property and Mr. Sterling transferred it without her consent.

There are even quiet title and reformation of deed counts, meaning that Mrs. Sterling wants to take Stiviano's house because it was purchased with community property. That would be an interesting eviction proceeding once Mrs. Sterling gets title to that property.

This is how the plaintiff sums it up: "This lawsuit involves the activities of Defendant Stiviano, who, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, engages in conduct designed to target, befriend, seduce, and then entice, cajole, borrow from, cheat, and/or receive as gifts transfers of wealth from wealthy older men whom she targets for such purpose."

That must be how lawyers who charge $1,000 per hour write. 

  Vanessa Stiviano Lawsuit

The Mrs. Donald Sterling v. V. Stiviano Lawsuit

The Donald Sterling recording has been all over the news recently. Supposedly, the tape was released by V. Stiviano to gain leverage in a lawsuit that was filed against her by Donald Sterling's wife, Rochelle Sterling. Mrs. Sterling alleges that Mr. Sterling gave V. Stiviano more than $2 million in marital funds, including a $1.8 million townhouse, $240,000 in cash, and more than $500,000 in vehicles, including two Bentleys, a Range Rover, and a Ferrari. Mrs. Sterling wants her money back.

I'm still trying to locate a full copy of this complaint, but I do have the first page. Illinois is not a community property state, so I am not familiar with the law behind Mrs. Sterling's theories, but the titles of all ten counts are spelled out pretty clearly on this first page. You'll see counts for conversion, constructive trust, unjust enrichment, etc. If anyone has a copy of the full document, please let me know. 

  

Tip of the hat to www.black-and-right.com for posting this photo, and also to Laura Erickson (@impetrio1) for directing me to it on twitter.

Blake would have been able to retire after this settlement.

All of the Northern people who read this blog know my friend Blake Cosentino. Blake likes to unwind with a cocktail. And when he makes a drink, Blake prefers clear ice. I have seen Blake spend more money on ice for a party than most people spend on hors d'oeuvres. I'm not kidding. That is why Blake is the first person I thought of when I read about this class action settlement. 

In 2008, multiple class action lawsuits from around the country were consolidated into one mega case called In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig., No. 7-md-1952 (E.D. Mich.). The lawsuits alleged a conspiracy to raise and fix the price of ice against numerous major ice companies, including Arctic Glacier, one of the largest suppliers of ice in North America. I have read about this case before. There was direct evidence of an explicit conspiracy to steal hundreds of millions of dollars from consumers. 

The lawsuit drove Arctic Glacier into bankruptcy and, as part of their reorganization, they have allocated more than $460,000,000 to settle the class action claims. Anyone who bought at least three bags of ice from Arctic Glacier between 2001 and 2008 will be entitled to a $6.00 settlement. Anyone who bought more than 10 bags of ice during that time period will be entitled to $6.00 for the first 10 bags and an additional $.60 for each additional bag. You'll need receipts to claim more than 10 bags. Claims must be filed by June 12, 2014. Here is the website: www.arcticindirectpurchaser.com. The problem, however, is that those purchases of ice must have occurred in either AZ, CA, IA, KS, ME, MA, MI, MN, MS, NE, NV, NM, NC, TN and/or WI. 

What!!? Are you kidding me! No Illinois? And did you notice the dates? 2001-2008!! I met Blake in the fall of 2000, our first year of law school. We've been friends ever since. I know Blake keeps his receipts too. I know he could have made claim to a large portion of that 460 million dollar settlement if only Illinois was included in this class. It really could have been something. It's kind of depressing actually. Especially because I do feel partly responsible for some of those high ice bills, along with some of my unnamed co-conspirators from Old Orchard #4.  

Landlord and Tenant Obligations

I would like to thank the folks at Sterling Education Services for inviting me to speak at today's seminar in Rockford. The seminar was titled Fundamentals of Landlord-Tenant Law, and my particular topic dealt with the obligations of landlords and tenants.

HERE is a link to the written materials that I used for my presentation. These materials have been updated slightly based on several questions that I received from the audience, so this link contains the most recent version. I have also added this link to the Forms Archive section of the Blog.  

Reverse Mortgages

A reverse mortgage is a type of loan available to an individual borrower who is more than 62 years of age and who has sufficient equity in his or her primary residence. A reverse mortgage allows a borrower to cash out the equity in his or her house, in exchange for a lump sum or monthly payments, without making any immediate payments back to the lender. The lender is not entitled to repayment until the borrower dies, the property is sold, or the house is no longer used as the borrower's primary residence. 

All of that seems very straightforward, but what actually happens after the death of the borrower? Oftentimes, children may expect to inherit their parents' real estate and they may not even know that their parents had taken reverse mortgages later in life. There are very specific rules dealing with the timelines and payoff procedures which, if not followed, can lead to a mortgage foreclosure lawsuit. Children of parents who die with reverse mortgages risk losing the family home if they are not aware of their rights.

Under federal regulations governing reverse mortgages, heirs have up to 30 days from when the loan becomes due to determine what they want to do with the property, and up to six months to arrange financing. More importantly, there is a rule that allows heirs to pay 95 percent of the current fair market value of the property for a release of the mortgage. The difference offered by the 95 percent rule can be critical. Following the financial crisis, the disparity between the current value of a home and the total balance on the mortgage can often mean the difference between keeping a home and losing it to foreclosure.

If you are dealing with a reverse mortgage lender following the death of a parent, you may wish to consult an attorney to make sure that you understand all of your options.

A father has no legal right to be in the delivery room, a court rules.

A woman preparing to give birth has no obligation to notify the father when or where the birth will occur, a New Jersey court has ruled. And if the father does appear at the hospital, the mother can bar him from entering the delivery room. The case appears to be the first of its kind nationwide.

The case arose after a couple conceived a child, got engaged, but later called off the wedding. After the wedding was called off, they were barely on speaking terms. The father finally sued the mother and requested access to the baby at the hospital after its birth. He didn't even request to be in the delivery room.

The court specifically ruled that fathers have no established legal right to be present at the birth of their children. Going further, the court also said that the father wasn't even entitled to know at which hospital the birth would occur. 

The court first noted that he father’s presence could put undue stress on the mother and possibly harm the fetus. In this case, the mother had undergone testing for premature labor and stress. But, more importantly, the court pointed to the strong constitutional and statutory protections afforded to all medical patients, not only pregnant women. Basically, any patient can decide who he wants to have at his bedside. The fact that they were dealing with the birth of a baby had no consequence. The court ruled that any interest a father has before the child’s birth is “subordinate to the mother’s interests.” 

This seems like a tough result, but it was the only logical decision for the court after it analyzed two landmark Supreme Court cases on abortion. The court cited Roe v. Wade from 1973 and Planned Parenthood v. Casey from 1992. Both of those cases established stronger privacy rights for expectant mothers and their unborn child than their fathers. Specifically, the Casey ruled that women are not even required to tell their spouses about abortions. An abortion seems like much more of a drastic situation than a birth, so the court ruled that the same privacy rights should be extended to births as well.

Deposition Levity

I'm going through some deposition transcripts in preparation for an upcoming trial. I thought you might enjoy the following exchange:

Mr. Huseman:  Do you have an attorney in that case?
Witness:  Yes.
Mr. Huseman:  Who is it?
Witness:  Grossman.
Mr. Huseman:  Rex Grossman?
Witness:  No. Jay Cutler.

Sometimes it's the little things that get me through the Friday afternoons.

Refresher on Bailment

I'm reading a 7th Circuit opinion concerning the bankruptcy case of a commercial livestock operation, In re Mississippi Valley Livestock, Inc. Without getting into the facts or the holding of the case, I just thought I would pass along the following succinct definition of a bailment relationship in case anybody is interested:

Under Illinois law, “bailment is ‘the delivery of goods for some purpose, upon a contract, express or implied, that after the purpose has been fulfilled [the goods] shall be redelivered to the bailor, or otherwise dealt with according to his directions, or kept till he reclaims them.’” Kirby v. Chi. City Bank &  Trust Co., 403  N.E.2d  720,  723 (Ill. App.  Ct.  1980);  see also Berglund v. Roosevelt Univ., 310 N.E.2d 773, 775 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974) (“Bailment is defined as the rightful possession  of  goods  by  one  who  is  not  an owner.”).  Although bailment takes  many  forms,  the  “characteristics common to  every bailment  are the intent to create a bailment, delivery of possession of the bailed items, and the acceptance of the items by the bailee.” Id. at 775–76.