|

 

The Illinois Attorney General has listed the top 10 consumer complaints of 2009. The Attorney General’s website describes those complaints:

The intensifying home foreclosure crisis dominated Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s Top 10 Consumer Complaints for 2009. Madigan today reported that 31,264 consumers filed complaints with her Consumer Protection Division last year. The consumer debt category topped the complaints filed by Illinois consumers, including a 65 percent increase in residential mortgage-related complaints. In addition, an estimated 21,000 consumers have called the Attorney General’s Homeowner Helpline for assistance since 2008, while the Attorney General’s Consumer Fraud Bureau helped secure an estimated $23 million in mortgage-related savings, including loan modifications for at-risk borrowers, last year.

“These numbers demonstrate how this economic crisis is hitting home for tens of thousands of Illinois families,” Madigan said. “Hardworking people are struggling to make their mortgage payments on time. They’re fighting to cope with mounting debts, and they’re being targeted by con artists looking to make a quick buck. This is a challenging time, and I urge anyone who is struggling to make ends meet to contact my office to make sure that they do not become victims of fraud.”
Consumer Debt Complaints Rank First
Since 2008, complaints to Madigan’s office about consumer debt grew nearly 16.5 percent, a reflection of the increasingly dire financial constraints people in Illinois are experiencing during the economic downturn. Complaints in this top category cover a wide range of consumer debt issues, such as residential mortgages, credit card debt, and installment loan debt. Specifically, the highest reported debt-related complaints involved:

Mortgage Foreclosure
In 2009, nearly 4,000 homeowners filed residential mortgage complaints with Madigan’s office, a 65 percent increase over the previous year. In addition to the significant increase, the types of complaints reported are also transforming. In the first wave of the foreclosure, a majority of complaints reported to the Attorney General’s office came from homeowners who were placed in risky home loans that they could never afford. As the foreclosure crisis continues, Madigan said that around 2008 her office began receiving more calls from homeowners who have lost their jobs and can no longer make their mortgage payments.

Madigan has made helping homeowners stay in their homes a top priority. In October 2008, the Attorney General brokered a ground-breaking $8.7 billion settlement in her predatory lending lawsuit against Countrywide, the nation’s largest mortgage lender, that established the country’s first mandatory loan modification program. As a result of this settlement and President Obama’s subsequent HAMP program, thousands of Countrywide borrowers in Illinois, and hundreds of thousands nationwide, have been able to modify their loans and remain in their homes. During 2009, Madigan also filed suit against Wells Fargo, alleging the lender engaged in consumer fraud and illegally discriminated against African American and Latino homeowners by selling them high-cost subprime mortgage loans while white borrowers with similar incomes received lower cost loans.

The Attorney General’s office also reported an increase in complaints against mortgage rescue companies that prey on homeowners who are desperate to save their homes. In the most common form of the scam, these so-called foreclosure “rescue” businesses charge homeowners a large up-front “consulting” fee to negotiate a loan modification with the lender. But after taking the homeowners’ money, these companies actually do little or nothing to save the home, leaving homeowners in an even more difficult situation. Madigan has filed 31 lawsuits targeting mortgage rescue scams.

Madigan established the Homeowner Helpline (1-866-544-7151) in 2008 to provide direct assistance for borrowers who risk losing their homes to foreclosure. Since its inception, the helpline has received more than 21,000 calls from homeowners seeking assistance. The Attorney General’s office also has helped secured more than $21 million in loan modification savings for borrowers who were at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure over the past year. Madigan encouraged consumers who are at risk of falling behind on their mortgage payments to call her office to learn more about homeowners’ rights and the options available to them to try to save their home.

Collection Agencies
In 2009, the consumer debt complaints received by Madigan’s office included more than 1,300 reports about collection agencies, including complaints that agencies started collection efforts without verifying that the consumer actually owed the debt, attempted to collect a debt from the wrong person and used abusive tactics such as making calls to a consumer’s workplace or using threatening language.

Credit Card Companies
More than 1,000 consumers sought help from Madigan’s office for problems with their credit cards. Increasing numbers of consumers called to complain that their credit card companies added unexpected fees and charges to their monthly statements and suddenly increased the interest rate on their cards. Other consumers complained that the credit card companies suddenly reduced their credit limits. Madigan said that consumers can dispute the changes to their credit agreements directly with the credit card company or call her Consumer Fraud Bureau for assistance in disputing charges.

Identity Theft Complaints Rank Second
After calls to Madigan’s office about consumer debt, identity theft remained high on the annual list of consumer complaints, coming in at the second most-reported issue. Madigan’s office received 4,376 identity theft-related complaints in 2009. A significant number of the complaints involve:

1.Credit card complaints (1,279), including reports of the takeover of an existing credit card account by a thief and also instances of a thief opening a new credit card account in the name of an ID theft victim;
2.Utility company complaints (464), concerning fraudulent wireless or landline phone, Internet, gas, electric and water accounts opened in the ID theft victim’s name; and
3.Bank fraud complaints (437), including complaints regarding stolen checks, new bank accounts opened in an ID theft victim’s name, and fraudulent withdrawals of money from victims’ bank accounts.
Consumers brought most of these complaints to Madigan’s office by contacting her Identity Theft Hotline (1-866-999-5630). Trained advocates and attorneys staff the hotline, working with consumers one-on-one to help them take the steps necessary to report the crime to local law enforcement and financial institutions, repair their credit and prevent future problems.

The Top 10 consumer complaints for 2009 are as follows:

CATEGORY # OF COMPLAINTS
1. Consumer Debt (mortgage lending, collections, credit cards) 7,843
2. Identity Theft (fraudulent credit cards and utility accounts, bank fraud) 4,376
3. Construction Home Improvement (remodeling, roofs/gutters) 2,601
4. Telecommunications (wireless service, local phone service, cable/satellite) 2,240
5 Promotions and Schemes (sweepstakes, pyramid, work-at-home schemes) 1,689
6. Motor Vehicles/Used Auto Sales (as-is sales, financing, warranties) 1,372
7. Mail Order (Internet purchases, catalog ordering, television/radio) 1,364
8. Fraud Against Business (consulting, directories/publications) 1,135
9. Utilities (natural gas, electric, water/sewer) 843
10. Motor Vehicle/Non-Warranty Repair (collision/body, engines, tune ups) 728

Continue reading ›

|

 

As Chicago business law attorneys, we were interested to see a recent appellate opinion reminding Illinois businesses that severability clauses won’t necessarily protect contract provisions from other clauses that have been voided. That was what happened in Kepple and Company, Inc. v. Cardiac, Thoracic and Endovasclar Therapies, S.C., No. 3-09-0033, Ill. 3rd. Dec. 16, 2009. In that case, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld a Peoria trial court’s ruling that an entire services contract between a medical biller and a medical corporation was void, because a fee-sharing provision violated the Medical Practice Act of 1987.

Kepple is a medical billing and collection services company. Cardiac, a medical corporation run by a single doctor, hired Kepple in 2003. Their services contract contained a fee-sharing clause allowing Kepple to retain 5% of all the money it collects for Cardiac. It also had non-compete, non-solicitation and no-hire clauses forbidding either company to solicit or hire away the other company’s employees without a release. And it had a severability clause specifying that if one part of the contract was found void, other parts should still be enforceable.

Cardiac became unhappy with Kepple’s services in mid-2006 and called a meeting on Aug. 3, 2006. Two days later, Kepple’s vice president, Debra Hawley, gave notice that she would leave on Nov. 3. Hawley was the sole person handling Cardiac’s work. Her employment contract had a non-compete clause preventing her from joining a company with 50% or more of its business from medical billing within one year of leaving Kepple. On Sept. 13, Cardiac gave notice that it was terminating its contract with Kepple as of Nov. 10. On Nov. 13, Hawley started working for Cardiac.

Kepple sued both of them when it found out and requested a preliminary injunction keeping Hawley from working at Cardiac. The trial court turned this down, finding that Hawley’s employment contract didn’t apply, since Cardiac is not a competitor to Kepple, and that the non-compete clause of the services contract was unenforceable because it had no time limit. It also found that Hawley was solicited, but not hired, while she was at Kepple, but that suing was an adequate remedy for this. An interlocutory appeal to the Third District upheld these findings.

On remand, the defendants promptly filed for summary judgment based on both courts’ findings. The trial court granted it, saying that the service contract’s fee-sharing clause violated the Act, which prohibits physicians from sharing fees with anyone other than physicians practicing in the same business. Thus, the court said, the contract was void in its entirety. And even if the contract was severable, the trial court had already found that Cardiac did not induce Hawley to leave her job at Kepple. Thus, there was no violation of the non-solicitation clause, the trial court found. Kepple appealed, arguing only the severability issue. It agreed that the Medical Practice Act banned the fee-sharing agreement, but said other provisions are severable and enforceable.

In its opinion, the Third District said that under the Second Restatement of Contracts, the essential issue was whether the voided part of the contract was an essential part of the contract. In this case, the court said “there can be no dispute” that it was. The fee-sharing clause is “the very essence” of the agreement, the court said, and thus the entire contract is void and unenforceable. That means the trial court was correct to grant summary judgment in Cardiac’s favor. With that settled, the appeals court noted that it did not have to consider the remainder of either side’s arguments. It also dismissed an argument by Kepple as waived on appeal because it was not raised in trial court.

Continue reading ›

|

If you believe you purchased a car, motorcyle, boat, or RV that is a lemon, have been a victim of auto fraud, RV fraud, boat fraud, auto dealer fraud, auto repair fraud or have been deceived into buying a flood car, rebuilt wreck or salvage vechicle DiTommaso Lubin may be able to help rectify the problem. We or experienced co-counsel are prepared to file suit in the right case anywhere in the country. For a free consultation on your rights as an employee, contact us today.

Our Auto Dealer Fraud, Auto Repair Fraud Auto Fraud, RV Fraud, and Boat Fraud private law firm and our affliated co-counsel handle individual and class action consumer rights, lemon law, and autofraud lawsuits that government agencies and public interest law firms may decide not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. DiTommaso Lubin is proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to employee and consumer fraud and rip-offs, and in the right case filing employee or consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that consumers’ rights are protected from unscrupulous, illegal or dishonest practices.

Our Hinsdale, Aurora, Elgin, Joiliet, and Wheaton consumer law attorneys and Chicago lemon law and auto fraud attorneys provide assistance in RV, boat, motorcyle and automobile fraud and consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago area consumer rights, predatory lending or consumer protection lawyers who can assist in auto dealer fraud, auto repair fraud, lemon law, auto fraud, RV fraud, wage claim, unfair debt collection and other consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

|

Our Chicago consumer rights private law firm handles individual and class action unfair debt collection and other consumer fraud cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Illinois Attorney General may not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. DiTommaso Lubin is proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers’ rights are protected from consumer rip-offs and unscrupulous or dishonest practices.

Our Hinsdale, Wheaton, Naperville, Batavia and Oak Brook consumer lawyers provide assistance in fair debt collection, consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago consumer protection lawyers who can assist in lemon law, unfair debt collection, wage claims, unpaid overtime and other consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

|

In addition to gift card fraud, some retailers fail to honor gift cards. Our Chicago class action attorneys file suit against retailers who refuse to honor gift cards.

Our Chicago consumer rights private law firm handles individual and class action unfair debt collection and other consumer fraud cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Illinois Attorney General may not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. DiTommaso Lubin is proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers’ rights are protected from consumer rip-offs and unscrupulous or dishonest practices.

Our Evanston, Highland Park and Wilmette consumer lawyers provide assistance in fair debt collection, consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago consumer protection lawyers who can assist in lemon law, unfair debt collection, wage claims, unpaid overtime and other consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

|

 

Our Chicago consumer fraud attorneys were pleased to see a recent ruling affirming real estate buyers’ right to relief, and punitive damages, after fraud by the builder. Linhart v. Bridgeview Creek Development Inc., No. 1-07-2712, (Ill. 1st May 20, 2009). Plaintiffs Ken Linhart, Beverly Linhart, Amy Gable, Jane Longo, Lloyd Clark and Diane Latta bought four townhomes in the Bridgeview subdivision in Palatine, Ill. in 1997 and 1998. All four units were part of the same building. During construction of that building, a town inspector noted that the foundation was sinking. This problem was not obvious during the pre-purchase walk-throughs, but later allegedly caused the building to sink seven to ten inches, causing cracks in the walls, slanted floors, floors and ceilings pulling apart, sticking doors and windows and flooding.

In 2001, the plaintiffs sued the developer, builder and its owner over these defects, claiming breach of implied warrant of habitability; fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment; and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. A jury trial returned a verdict of $1.38 million in compensatory damages for all plaintiffs, plus punitive damages of $5,000 plus attorney fees for each plaintiff. Defendants appealed, saying the jury’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence; the jury was improperly instructed; the six plaintiffs should have had six separate verdicts rather than one; and punitive damages were improper.

The First District started with the meatiest issue: whether the verdict itself was not supported by the evidence. On the fraud and Consumer Fraud Act claims, the defendants argued that plaintiffs should have shown that they relied on defendants’ misrepresentations when they purchased the townhouses. As to the four plaintiffs claiming common-law fraud, the court wrote, there was in fact ample evidence that they did so. The evidence in the record shows that defendants lied about the cause of cracks in the walls and the foundation, including the statement that “it’s not like the house is going to sink or anything.” Thanks to the village inspector’s report, defendants knew this was not true. Thus, the common-law fraud verdict was valid, and because common-law fraud is enough to support a Consumer Fraud Act claim, both verdicts were affirmed. The court also upheld the amount of the damages, saying qualified expert testimony supported it.

The court next examined the defendants’ argument that plaintiffs should have presented evidence for their own claims separately and received separate verdicts. It’s true that Illinois law requires separate verdicts when separate recoveries are sought, the First District wrote, but on the relevant count — breach of implied warranty of habitability — all of the plaintiffs presented their case as a single plaintiff, asking for repairs to the building as a whole. Thus, the ruling was affirmed. The First also rejected defendants’ arguments that the jury instructions were deficient in several ways. It did find an error in the jury instructions for breach of implied warranty of habitability, but said this error was harmless.

Last, the First District considered the issue of whether punitive damages were proper even though the plaintiffs never explicitly requested them. Punitive damages are available under the Consumer Fraud Act, the court noted, and plaintiffs asked for any relief provided by that law. Furthermore, evidence at trial showed that the defendants acted fraudulently or maliciously, as required for punitive damages, because they failed to correct a defect they knew about and intentionally misrepresented that defect to the buyers. And the trial court did not abuse its discretion, the appeals court said, because it considered both sides’ arguments and the defendants’ financial position. Thus, it upheld the punitive damages award and affirmed all of the trial court’s rulings.

Continue reading ›

|

Below is an informative video describing lemon rights for motorcycles, cars and other products:

If you believe you purchased a motorcycle, car, rv or other product that is a lemon, have been a victim of auto fraud, auto dealer fraud, auto repair fraud or have been deceived into buying a flood car, rebuilt wreck or salvage vechicle DiTommaso Lubin may be able to help rectify the problem. We or experienced co-counsel are prepared to file suit in the right case in the Chicago area or anywhere in the country. For a free consultation on your rights as an employee, contact us today.

Our Auto Dealer Fraud, Auto Repair Fraud Auto Fraud, RV Fraud, Motorcycle Fraud and Boat Fraud private law firm and our affliated co-counsel handle individual and class action consumer rights, lemon law, and autofraud lawsuits that government agencies and public interest law firms may decide not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. DiTommaso Lubin is proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to employee and consumer fraud and rip-offs, and in the right case filing employee or consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that consumers’ rights are protected from unscrupulous, illegal or dishonest practices.

Continue reading ›

|

 

Our Naperville wage and hour rights attorneys noted a recent ruling out of Massachusetts that could be important for police officers and firefighters around the United States. In Calvao et al. v. Town of Framingham, No. 09-1648 (1st.Cir. March 17, 2010), the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that employers don’t have to notify their public safety workers when they take advantage of a special provision in the Fair Labor Standards Act that exempts them from the ordinary 40-hour work week. Instead, these employers are permitted to establish “work periods” of seven to 28 days, after which the employees must be paid overtime. The plaintiffs, a class of about 100 Framingham, Mass. police officers, believed that the Town of Framingham was not eligible for this exemption because it never “established” the work period by notifying them of its existence.

The FLSA was amended in 1966 and 1974 to apply to state and municipal workers. This triggered concerns about costs from local governments, which ended partially with Congress enacting the section of law at issue in this case, which allows a longer period before overtime is triggered, to account for the unpredictable nature of public safety work. The Town of Framingham circulated a memo in 1986 declaring that the work period for police and fire personnel was 24 days. This worked out to about 43 hours in a seven-day period before overtime was triggered. Fourteen years later, in 2000, the police officers’ union negotiated a change in schedule from four days on and two off to five days on and three off. Both fit into the 24-day schedule. In 2005, the officers brought the instant action, suing for a declaratory judgment that they had been denied overtime because the work period had never been “established” as required by federal law. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the defendants on this issue, and the officers appealed.

They had no better luck at the First Circuit, which found no evidence for their argument in the text of the statute, its legislative history or Department of Labor guidelines. The text of the law at issue does not require notice, the court wrote, or even suggest how an employer might establish its work period. The statute doesn’t explicitly prohibit giving notice, but Congress did explicitly give responsibility for enforcing FLSA regulations to the Secretary of Labor. Regulations enacted by people in that role “make it clear the Secretary rejected a notice requirement,” the court wrote. In fact, the Secretary in office at the time reviewed and rejected a proposed notice requirement, noting that the Act does not require one. In addition, legislative history shows that Congress expressly rejected a proposal to require employee agreement before the work period could be established.

Finally, the court rejected the officers’ argument that a Department of Labor letter ruling mandates a notice requirement. The issue was never brought up in district court and would be waved in any case, it wrote, but is also inappropriate for three reasons. One is that the letter never mentioned a notice requirement, instead saying that “”[a]n employer must designate or otherwise objectively establish the work period . . . and pay the affected employees in accordance with its provisions.” The letter was also responding to a specific court case raising issues not relevant in the instant action. And opinion letters don’t have the force of rulings, the court said, especially since the Secretary of Labor has already reached the opposite conclusion from the one the officers sought here. Thus, the summary judgment ruling by the district court was affirmed.

Continue reading ›

|

Our Chicago business law lawyers at DiTommaso Lubin are dedicated to helping businesses and business people in pursuing and protecting their rights in business lawsuits. To see the the wide variety of business lawsuits our Chicago business trial attorneys have handled click here. You can contact one of our Oakbrook and Chicago business law attorneys through our website by clicking here.

|

Debt collectors are prohibited by federal law from engaging in deception, extortion, threats, lies, and invading your privacy by calling your friends, neighbors and employers. This video exposes illegal debt collection practices and explains practices which violate the law such claiming that you owe money which is owed by others, calling your workplace and revealing the debt, or threatening to bring suit or obtain a judgment with no intent to do so. Many debt collectors are pressured to meet sales quotas and engage in abuse to make money. Debt collectors can be persistent but they can’t abuse or lie to you to get the bills paid.

Our Oak Brook consumer rights private law firm handles individual and class action predatory lending, unfair debt collection, lemon law and other consumer fraud cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Illinois Attorney General may not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. The Chicago consumer attorneys at DiTommaso Lubin are proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers’ rights are protected from consumer rip-offs and unscrupulous or dishonest practices.

Our Waukegan and Wheaton consumer lawyers provide assistance in fair debt collection, consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago consumer law lawyers who can assist in lemon law, unfair debt collection, predatory lending, wage claims, unpaid overtime and other consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address office.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW
Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, DiTommaso Lubin, PC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design