Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Unifund CCR Partners v. Shah

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Second Division

June 18, 2013

UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MOHAMMAD SHAH, Defendant-Appellee.

Held [*]

Plaintiff’s complaint to collect an assigned credit card debt owed by defendant was properly dismissed on the ground that plaintiff failed to show that the multiple assignments, especially the assignment to plaintiff and the assignment to plaintiff’s assignor, satisfied the requirements of section 8b of the Collection Agency Act, including the requirements that the consideration terms and account information be shown, since plaintiff failed to include the necessary information in its filing, and in the absence of a record containing the information, the appellate court assumed the trial court acted correctly.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 08-M1-162091; the Hon. Dennis M. McGuire, Judge, presiding.

Joseph P. Kincaid, Catherine Basque Weiler, and Amy Z. Knapp, all of Swanson Martin & Bell, LLP, of Chicago, for appellant.

Daniel A. Edelman, Cathleen M. Combs, James O. Latturner, and Tiffany N. Hardy, all of Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, of Chicago, for appellee.

Stacie E. Barhorst, of Kaplan Papadakis & Gournis, P.C., of Chicago, for amicus curiae Illinois Creditors Bar Association.

Joseph S. Messer and Nicole M. Strickler, both of Messer & Stilp, Ltd., of Chicago, for amicus curiae ACA International.

Michael L. Starzec, of Wheeling, and Christopher R. DiPlacido, of Deerfield, for amicus curiae National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys.

David J. Phillips and Mary E. Phillips, both of Phillips & Phillips, Ltd., of Palos Hills, for amicus curiae NCLC and NACA.

Julie Nepevu, of AARP Foundation Litigation, of Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae AARP.

Panel JUSTICE CONNORS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Quinn and Simon concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

CONNORS, JUSTICE.

¶ 1 This appeal is the sequel to Unifund CCR Partners v. Shah, 407 Ill.App. 3D 737 (2010) (Shah I), which answered two certified questions regarding the contents of assignments for collection under section 8b of the Collection Agency Act (225 ILCS 425/8b (West 2008)). After the parties returned to the circuit court, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the circuit court then dismissed on defendant's motion. Plaintiff has appealed from that judgment, and we are now confronted with a question of first impression that we touched on only in passing in Shah I: do section 8b's requirements apply to all assignments in the chain of title for a debt, or do they apply only to assignments for collection? We decide that it is the latter.

¶ 2 This case comes to us following a motion to dismiss, so we take all well-pleaded facts from the complaint as true. See Callaghan v. Village of Clarendon Hills, 401 Ill.App.3d 287, 300 (2010). Defendant Mohammad Shah held a credit card issued by Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., on which he accumulated a balance of about $16, 000 and then defaulted. After the default, Citibank transferred defendant's account to Unifund Portfolio A, LLC, which in turn transferred the account to Cliffs Portfolio Acquisition I, LLC. Cliffs then transferred legal title in the account to Palisades Collection, LLC, which in turn transferred its interest in the account to Unifund CCR Partners, which is the plaintiff in this case. The whole series of transactions was made ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.