Cook County Evictions

                 As a Landlord attorney, my job is to help my clients navigate the eviction process in a manner that minimizes stress and is also cost effective. In Cook County, this goal is almost impossible. I have been practicing in this area of the law for many years now, but I am still amazed at how inefficient Cook County is when it comes to handling these matters. Whenever I receive an inquiry from a potential Cook County client, I always have to provide a long explanation upfront of what difficulties the landlord is sure to encounter. Yet, even after providing a thorough and exhaustive explanation, I find my Cook County clients are still stunned by the unbelievable waste of time and money that accompanies the eviction process in Cook County. This is very disappointing because so many of my clients are not big management companies, but rather small time investors with one or two rental properties. In many cases, the delays they encounter in Cook County impose significant financial burdens on them. And, these problems are really so unnecessary when you consider that the law relating to evictions is not rocket science, and it is the same for all of Illinois. Unfortunately, it is the actual execution of the law that varies from county to county. My practice covers Cook and all of the collar counties (Will, Kane, Dupage, Lake, Kendall, McHenry).                                                            

                   In my experience, all of the collar counties are fairly similar. I can usually give a good estimate of how long an eviction will take from start to finish assuming that a tenant takes advantage of all their rights under law. You typically have a couple months in court if a tenant wants to go to trial and then another couple of weeks or month until the Sheriff get can get out to the property to execute the order if the tenant does not leave on their own accord.  Unfortunately, it is not so in Cook County. First, in Cook, you have to use the Sheriff for the first round of service of process attempts. In the collar counties, I go straight to a private process server. For $75-$150, my server will at a minimum, make 7 attempts at service before the first court date. If they fail to get service on a tenant who is avoiding, I can at least ask the judge for permission to do a posting which is usually granted. This alone saves three weeks and a couple hundred dollars. But, it is not so in Cook. In Cook County, my clients fork out anywhere from $120-$180 to the  Sheriff who gets first dibs on service attempts. In my experience, the Sheriff makes one or two attempts and usually fails to get the defendant served. So, when I go back to court, I can't usually get a posting because the Sheriff hasn't made enough attempts. So, I have to get permission to use a private server and waste more of my client's time and money before getting service or permission for a posting. If you ask the Sheriff's office why this is the case, you will hear an explanation about how big Cook County is and how they have a lot going on. Of course, this is as good an argument as any why the law should not require that you use the Sheriff on the first round of service attempts. Revoking that rule alone would save time and money.                                                                                                                                                                                           Second, in Cook County, once you have your order of possession, you take it to the Sheriff for execution. This is the same as in all of the other counties. But, unlike the other counties, Cook does not schedule a specific date. Rather, they give you a number to check on the Sheriff's website, and when you see your number that means it is supposed to be executed "soon." "Soon" however, is a very vague term and usually means nothing as I have on many occasions seen my number pop up, and the eviction still didn't take place for many weeks after that. Furthermore, even after your number pops up, you never get an actual date. You get a call the day or night before the eviction from the Sheriff saying they will be there the next day, and that you have to meet them at such and such time or your eviction will be canceled. This practice is a huge problem for most small time landlords because they don't have a management company to coordinate all of this. And, the Sheriff requires you to have four able bodied people with you to move the tenant's property off the premises and on to the front lawn/driveway. Now, a management company can usually pull this off even the night before because they have a crew they can assemble or hire. This is a very difficult for normal people who have jobs and have to scramble last minute to hire movers or assemble relatives or friends. To be fair, all of the counties require you to have helpers to move the property off the premises. The Sheriff isn't going to carry stuff out, they are just there to keep the peace and ensure the landlord can get the property back. But, at least in the other counties, they give you an exact date so you can prepare a few weeks ahead of time to have people in place to coordinate this effort. But, not so in Cook County.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Finally, the biggest and most serious problem in Cook County is the amount of time it takes the Sheriff to execute these orders. In Dupage, it is almost always about three weeks after the date given by the judge on the order of possession. In Cook County, it is anyone's guess. In the winter, it is even worse because they have to cancel and reschedule some days due to extremely cold weather. It is not uncommon for the Sheriff to take 4-6 months to get these orders executed. This last fall/winter was taking about 4 months for my clients. I filed one order in October that got executed in February. Keep in mind, that this is 4 months with no rent being paid. Unfortunately for most of my clients, they are still paying the mortgage and property taxes while rent is not being paid. And while they are waiting for the Sheriff, they often have an angry tenant in the property who may being doing significant damage to the premises.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Even though I warn my clients, they are always frustrated and desperate when this actually unfolds. Some of the tips that I offer are as follows: 1) I try to encourage them with the fact that not every tenant waits until the Sheriff arrives to leave the property. Many leave on their own. Because there is no certain date when the Sheriff arrives, many tenants don't want to take the chance of having their possessions put out on the lawn. Nevertheless, many do wait until the very last minute. 2) I try to get my clients to consider "cash for keys." For small time landlords, this is a very bitter pill to swallow. Even though it makes economic sense, some just can't even consider this option. This is especially true if the tenant already owes unpaid rent and if there are hard feelings between the parties. But, if the Sheriff is going to take 4 months to get the tenants out, it makes more sense to either forgive the rent owed or even offer a couple thousand dollars to get the tenants out quicker. If you can get the tenants out in a couple weeks and get the place re-rented quicker, you are likely in a better financial situation. Of course, the tenant has to be willing to leave quickly in exchange for the money. This is not always an option tenant are willing to accept.    

Captain Kirk v. Iqbal

Star Date 93795.09 (thanks to star date calculator here): Today, paramount Pictures filed an amended complaint (here) against Axanar Productions in a copyright infringement suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Florida. Paramount charges Axanar with “unauthorized exploitation of Star Trek, one of the most successful entertainment franchises of all time.” And it would be difficult to deny that allegation since Star Trek has spawned 6 television series and 12 movies with a new movie planned for release this year and a new T.V. series planned for 2017.

To Trekkies, the most important aspect of the Amended Complaint is the Star Trek photographs and trivia included in the pleading. For example, you may know that the Klingons are a warrior race from the planet Qo’noS and first appeared in a 1967 episode of the original series, but did you know that the Klingons’ planet was not seen until a 1990 episode (Amended Complaint at 11-12, 20)? Or that “Dilithium is a crystalline substance used in warp propulsion systems to regulate the matter/antimatter reactions that provide the energy necessary for faster-than-light speed (Amended Complaint at 29)”? The photographs and factual trivia take up 28 pages of the 48 page amended pleading.

To non-Trekkie lawyers, the importance of the Amended Complaint lies in the fact that it demonstrates (to the extreme) the change from simple “notice” pleading to the factually demanding “plausibility” pleading now required in federal courts by Ashcroft v. Iqbal (here). The case will likely demonstrate another fact of modern day litigation— discovery is unlikely to move at warp speed.

A party who represents herself... You know the rest...

I'm reading a case about a pro se plaintiff who was sanctioned for her behavior at trial. The case is somewhat interesting and may stand for the proposition that a party can be liable for the opposing party's legal fees based upon his or her misconduct, even in the absence of a contract or statute providing for legal fees. The case is Harvey v. Carponelli, 117 Ill.App.3d 448 (1st Dist. 1983). There's also good language in there about holding pro se litigants to the same procedural standards as attorneys.

Anyway, all I really wanted to point out is the following paragraph from the case. For some reason this description of the trial made me laugh out loud. I'm just glad it wasn't me who had to oppose this lady.

"Plaintiff's first witness was called and examined. The trial judge found that the entire line of questioning by plaintiff as pro se counsel indicated a lack of awareness of the issues raised by [her] in her fourth amended complaint. The entire testimony of this witness was stricken as irrelevant. Next, plaintiff called herself as a witness. After taking the stand, she was allowed to read questions to herself from her notes for 1 1/2 days. She asked herself at least one question to which she answered "I don't know." 

Oh man... One and half days? And she was answering "I don't know" to her own questions!! I would have had a heart attack. 

$2,000 per hour?

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP is a global law firm with more than 1,000 lawyers spread between 18 offices. Ted Olson is one of their managing partners. Mr. Olson is widely regarded as one of the best lawyers in the country, if not the world. He has argued 62 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, including Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, and the case that overturned California's ban on same-sex marriages. His biography on the law firm's website says that he has prevailed more than 75% of the time before the U.S. Supreme Court.   

Mr. Olson was also involved in the Tony Bostic case that overturned Virginia's ban on same-sex marriages. Mr. Bostic and his spouse, as the prevailing parties in a civil rights lawsuit, became entitled to reimbursement of their legal fees. As part of that process, Gibson Dunn's bills have recently become public and are now making the rounds on the legal blogs. I have embedded them below.  

These guys know how to bill, holy cow. Gibson Dunn was only involved in the case for approximately 14 months. Their final bill was $1,378,771.00. The invoices are categorized by partner time, associate time, and paralegal time. The partners' rates run from $795 to $1,800 per hour. The associates' rates are between $425 and $740 per hour. The paralegals' rates are between $255 and $385.

Mr. Olson is the only lawyer on these statements billing at $1,800 per hour. However, I found articles on the internet from 2012 that set Mr. Olson's billing rate at $1,800 per hour back then. His rate was still $1,800 on these invoices and his time entries end in September 2014. It is reasonable to conclude that he has increased his billing rate since September 2014, especially considering that he had been billing at the same rate at least as far back as 2012. I wonder if he's now at $2,000 per hour.

If you've ever wondered what it would cost to have one of the best law firms in the world on your side, today is your lucky day. Just imagine receiving this bill in the mail at the conclusion of your case. If you are unable to view the file below, I have also linked to the bills HERE.

  Gibson Dunn Attorney Time Sheets

ISBA Issues Report on Recent Law School Graduates

The Illinois State Bar Association has issued its Report and Recommendations of the Special Committee on the Impact of Current Law School Curriculum on the Future of the Practice of Law in Illinois (here). The Report explores ways to ensure that law school graduates are “prepared for the realities facing new lawyers in today’s legal marketplace.” According to the Report, the top complaint of experienced attorneys about their new colleagues is the inability to write clearly, concisely, and accurately. The Report also concludes that graduates fall short in:

Drafting Legal Documents

Recognizing Legal Issues

Performing Legal Research

Organizational Skills

Exposure to Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods

Problem Solving

Professionalism and Work Ethic

Understanding Civil Case Chronology:

Business Skills

Practical Application of Evidence Rules

Gambling Fever...in Bankruptcy Court

When a person files bankruptcy, all of his property is transferred into a theoretical pot known as the bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy trustee can then sell items from the bankruptcy estate to pay back the creditors, subject to certain limitations and exemptions.

A 73-year-old man from Michigan recently filed bankruptcy. One of his assets at the time was his right to receive $1,000 per month for life pursuant to a Michigan Lotto "Cash for Life" jackpot that he won back in 1984. The cash payments for life became part of the bankruptcy estate and were subsequently auctioned by the trustee. The catch, however, is that as soon as the debtor dies, the payments will stop

How much would you pay to receive $1,000 per month for the rest of a 73-year-old bankruptcy debtor's life? The winning bid was $40,026. It's kind of ironic that gambling is probably what lead the old dude into bankruptcy to begin with, but then his creditors had to gamble in an attempt to get their money back. If he lives for another 20 years, the winning bidder will have hit the jackpot.

HERE is a link to a news article about the bankruptcy sale.

Husemans Usually Win Big Cases

Most people have probably googled their own name at some point. But I took it one step further. I did a nationwide Lexis search for published court opinions involving Husemans. It turns out that three Husemans have had their cases heard before state supreme courts, two in Illinois and one in Indiana. 

We're two out of three and we're on a hot streak considering that we won the last two. It has been a while though ... our last victory before the Illinois Supreme Court came in 1914.

Here are the three cases:

Huseman v. Sims, Supreme Court of Indiana, December 30, 1885: 

This case originated out of Dearborn County, Indiana. Mr. Huseman (his first name was not identified), due to unfortunate circumstances that were probably outside of his control but which were not explained in the court's ruling, had apparently fallen behind on his rent. His landlord obtained a judgment against him for $1,059.25. Mr. Sims was the county sheriff. At the instruction of the landlord, Mr. Sims, as sheriff, seized Mr. Huseman's property in order to sell it and pay off the judgment. 

Mr. Huseman contended that the seized property was exempt from execution, so he sued the sheriff. Huseman lost at trial and then appealed. The Indiana Supreme Court found that Mr. Huseman did not properly raise his exemptions at trial, so the sheriff's execution was proper. 

Huseman loses on a technicality. 

Sassenberg v. Huseman, Supreme Court of Illinois, October 16, 1899:

This case originated out of Bureau County, Illinois. The Sassenbergs were the heirs of a man who had once owned a farm in Bureau County consisting of 120 acres. John and Anna Huseman claimed to be the rightful owners of the farm, having purchased it prior to the decedent's passing. The Sassenbergs challenged the Husemans' deed as a forgery and attempted to acquire title to the farm. 

The trial court believed that the Husemans were honest people who had legally acquired the farm. The Strassbergs appealed. The Illinois Supreme Court found that the witnesses who testified at trial were credible, including the decedent's daughter who witnessed the execution of the deed and the notary public. 

The Supreme Court affirmed that the Husemans were honest, trustworthy people. Big win for the Husemans, not that it was ever really in doubt.

Bruns v. Huseman, Supreme Court of Illinois, December 16, 1914:

This case originated out of Whiteside County, Illinois. Anna Mary Huseman, who was 80 years old at the time, owned a farm consisting of 157 acres. Ms. Huseman verbally authorized a man named Vernon C. Freeman to sell her farm. Mr. Freeman allegedly sold the farm to Mr. Bruns for $8,500 and took $500 down. Mr. Freeman presented a deed to Ms. Huseman, which she signed, but it was never delivered to Mr. Bruns or recorded with the county. Mr. Bruns sued Ms. Huseman for specific performance in order to force the sale of the farm for the remaining $8,000. Testimony at trial indicated that the farm may have been worth up to $125 per acre, or $19,625. Ms. Huseman resisted the specific performance of the alleged contract due to an allegedly fraudulent scheme between Mr. Freeman and Mr. Bruns to obtain title to the farm for a grossly inadequate price.

The trial court ruled that an agent's authority to bind the owner to a sale of real estate must be in writing pursuant to the statute of frauds. Therefore, Mr. Freeman did not have authority to sell the farm for $8,500. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Another big win for the Huseman family. Hopefully we can keep the streak alive if we find ourselves before the Supreme Court again. 

Defendant’s Name Must Appear on Face of Summons

The sample summons in Illinois Supreme Court Rule 101(d) requires “naming all defendants.” Illinois Supreme Court Rule 131(c) states that in multiple party cases, “it is sufficient in entitling documents, except a summons, to name the  . . . the first-named defendant with the usual indication of other parties (emphasis added).” So, what happens when a plaintiff files an action against several defendants, naming one defendant and adding the “et al” designation to each summons? Is the failure to include a defendant’s name in the caption of the summons a barrier to obtaining personal jurisdiction over that defendant even if the defendant is served? Arch Bay Holdings v. Perez (here), provides the answer.

Arch Bay filed a foreclosure action against a husband, wife, and other defendants. Each summons listed the husband by name followed by “et al.” The wife was served but did not appear. The court entered a default judgement against her. The trial court rejected the wife’s 2-1401 petition which claimed a lack of personal jurisdiction because her name did not appear on the summons. The Appellate Court, Second District, reversed.

The appellate court held that the model summons in Rule 101(d) requires that the names of all defendants appear in the caption of the summons. The fact that the wife’s name appeared on an attached list of defendants to be served did not cure the defect. And even thought the wife was served, “the missing name from the face of the summons was a barrier to obtaining personal jurisdiction” over her.

Financial Exploitation of an Elderly Person or a Person with a Disability

Effective January 1, 2016, the Illinois Criminal Code will be amended to include a new crime called "financial exploitation of an elderly person or a person with a disability." The new crime is a Class 4 felony if the value of the property is $300 or less and goes up to a Class 1 felony if the value is greater than $50,000.  

The new statute also creates a civil cause of action with the same name. The civil cause of action is available whether or not the defendant has been charged or convicted of a criminal offense under this section.  The civil cause of action provides for treble damages plus attorneys' fees to the victim or the estate of the victim.

A person commits financial exploitation of an elderly person or a person with a disability when he or she "stands in a position of trust or confidence with an elderly person or a person with a disability and he or she knowingly and by deception or intimidation obtains control over property of an elderly person or a person with a disability or illegally uses the assets or resources of an elderly person or a person with a disability."  

The statute defines "elderly" as someone over 60 years of age. The statute also provides that a person stands in a position of trust or confidence with an elderly person or person with a disability when he (i) is a parent, spouse, adult child or other relative by blood or marriage of the victim; (ii) is a joint tenant or tenant in common with the victim; (iii) has a legal or fiduciary relationship with the victim; (iv) is a financial planning or investment professional; or (v) is a paid or unpaid caregiver for the victim.

The new statute is located at 720 ILCS 5/17-56.