Unenforceable In the ActOn appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court found that the law excluded the settlement agreement. It found that the alleged agreement, which effectively amended an existing agreement by obliging the lender to waive the exercise of its remedies and right to repayment, is clearly the type of agreement contained in the law. The Court also found that the debtors clearly submitted their request for the application of the settlement agreement to defend the lender`s actions to enforce the mortgage documents that are credit agreements. The Court of Justice granted the bank`s request to dismiss the borrower`s appeal, and the Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. Most notable in this case is that the court refused to enforce the agreement, although the amended terms were signed by the bank. The court interpreted the law strictly in order to require both the bank and the borrower to sign the agreement. The same applies when the borrower signed the corresponding documents, because the court found that they were “generic” and not suitable for this credit transaction. In addition, the Court of Appeal indicated that the debtors had not developed arguments as to where to find the signatures of the creditor and each debtor in the emails – a requirement under the law. It was indisputable that the alleged terms of the alleged settlement agreement were contained in emails exchanged by lawyers for the parties and that the lender, borrower and guarantors had not signed any of the emails in person.
In the end, the Court of Appeal found that the agreement was not enforceable under the law. The law prohibits claims arising from a rental or sale agreement when the contract operates at least partially as a credit agreement. In Haney v. Illinois Development Finance Authority, 53 ill. Ct. Cl. 171, 1998 WL 34303190 at *2-*3 (Oct. 21, 1998), the Illinois Court of Claims held that the Law had a right on the basis of an unsigned document, titled and in the form of a lease, but which had as its object and function the lending of money or the renewal of credit.
In Health At Home, Inc. v. Medical Capital, L.. C., 260 F.3d 748, 754 (7th Cir. 2001), the Federal Court of Appeal held that a sales and maintenance contract providing for the sale of receivables accompanied by a maintenance tax, an annual furnishing tax and a monthly fee on the basis of an interest rate for the sum of the receivables sold constituted a credit agreement and therefore excluded claims of the receivable/seller of receivables because the sales and service agreement was not signed by the lender. . . .