Hat Tip to Daniel Khwaja, Esq.
Attorney at Law
ph (312)-933-4015
There are several points in this decision worthy of reading and digesting. The principal point interesting to me is that the court correctly decided that an action on a mortgage for nonpayment is the same thing as an action on the note for nonpayment. They are both alleging defaults on the same instrument — the promissory note.
The banks try to make a distinction particularly where they are filing a second or third or fourth lawsuit on the same deal based upon the same facts. In Illinois they have a very intelligent rule which says that if you sue and then take a voluntary dismissal, and they you sue again and take a voluntary dismissal they can’t sue a third time.
In Hawaii, the banks have brought nonsense to a whole new level…
View original post 1,302 more words
Deadly Clear 
https://www.gallantgoose.com/2018-12-07-illinois-appeals-court-revives-banks-legal-malpractice-suit-against-its-former-foreclosure-lawfirm/
Hanmi Bank (plaintiff) that claimed its lawyers knowingly misled it down a path of fruitless litigation after voluntarily dismissing its last viable foreclosure action should have been given a chance to plead around its attorneys’ Chuhak & Tecson, P.C. (defendants) statute of limitations defense, an Illinois appeals court held Friday 2018-12-07.
This is a very good analysis and has useful cites involving the applicability (or not) of collateral estoppel, res judicata and statues of limitations – case remanded back to trial court with instructions – good stuff homeowners can use too!
December 7, 2018
Hanmi Bank v. Chuhak & Tecson, P.C.
2018 IL App (1st) 180089
(opinions also attached as PDFs)
entire opinion
Click to access 1180089.pdf
Also relates to IL Supreme Court First Midwest Bank v. Cobo, 2018 IL