Hat Tip to Daniel Khwaja, Esq.
Attorney at Law
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
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)
Click to access 1180089.pdf
Also relates to IL Supreme Court First Midwest Bank v. Cobo, 2018 IL