Ill. App. Court: Consumer's Effort To Undo Debt Buyer's Money Judgment Will Succeed Where Oufit Fails To Register Bill Collection Activities w/ State

A recent ruling by an Illinois Court of Appeals may provide a roadmap for those looking to fight off zombie debt buyers and other bill collectors in their efforts to squeeze cash-strapped consumers out of their scarce cash. Facts:

1. Trice, a resident of Illinois, used his Citibank credit card to pay for some plumbing services.


2. Trice failed to pay the full amount of the charge.


3. Citibank sold the delinquent account to LVNV, a debt collection agency, who then files a lawsuit against Trice.


4. Trice represented himself in the lawsuit and lost, LVNV obtaining a judgment for $3,303.90.


5. Trice then hired counsel, who moved to vacate the judgment, alleging that LVNV had not registered with the State of Illinois as a collection agency before it filed the suit against him.


6. According to Trice, LVNV obtained a license to act as a collection agency some months after LVNV filed the lawsuit against Trice, but some months before the court entered a judgment in favor of LVNV.


7. The trial court denied Trice’s motion to vacate the judgment without hearing evidence because it said Trice should have notified the court before trial that LVNV had not registered as a collection agency.


8. Trice filed an appeal.

The Illinois Court of Appeals vacated the lower court ruling on Trice's motion to vacate and booted the case back to the trial court to determine whether or not LVNV was registered with the state of Illinois as a collection agency at the time it aqcuired Trice's unpaid account from Citibank.

The appeals court said that if LVNV wasn't properly registered with the state at the time it acquired trice's unpaid account, then its purchase of the delinquent account is absolutely void (as opposed to merely voidable) and, consequently, it acquired no enforceable rights to collect from Trice. It noted that because such a judgment would be void (as opposed to being merely voidable), Trice's failure to raise the issue during the trial was not relevant. (Had the appeals court found that such a judgment was only voidable, Trice's lack of diligence in raising the issue may have sunk any attempt to void the judgment).

The ruling makes for a good read, especially for anyone looking to undo a money judgment obtained by a debt buyer who is not properly registered or licensed by the state in which they are attempting collections.(1)

For the ruling, see LVNV Funding, LLC v. Trice, No. 1-09-2773, (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 3rd Div., March 16, 2011).

See Repairing A Broken System: Protecting Consumers in Debt Collection Litigation and Arbitration for an FTC report on dealing with bill collectors & zombie debt buyers.

(1) A portion of the Illinois appeals court analysis follows (bold text is my emphasis):

• The Illinois General Assembly adopted legislation to license and regulate collection agencies beginning in 1974. Comment, The Illinois Collection Agency Act, 1975 U. Ill. L. Forum 441, 443. The Act, as amended, provides:
• “The practice as a collection agency by any entity in the State of Illinois is hereby declared to affect the public health, safety and welfare and to be subject to regulation and control in the public interest.” 225 ILCS 425/1a (West 2008).“No collection agency shall operate in this State, directly or indirectly engage in the business of collecting, solicit claims for others, *** exercise the right to collect, or receive payment for another of any account, bill or other indebtedness, without registering under this Act ***.” 225 ILCS 425/4 (West 2008).
• A party who acts as a collection agency without proper registration commits a Class A misdemeanor and must also pay a civil penalty. 225 ILCS 425/4.5, 14, 14b (West 2008). Assuming the truth of the allegations in Trice’s section 2-1401 motion, that LVNV had not registered as a collection agency before it sued Trice, LVNV committed one crime when it purchased the debt from Citibank (see 225 ILCS 425/3(d) (West 2008)), and it committed a second crime when it filed the complaint. See 225 ILCS 425/14 (West 2008).
• Williston states the general rule that applies here: “When a contracting party is required to have a license to engage in a business and violation of required licensing statute is made a crime, a contract calling for performance in violation of this requirement is illegal and void.” 10 Samuel Williston & Richard A. Lord, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts §19.47, at 562 (4th ed. 1993).
• The rule follows from the “elementary principle[] of contract law *** that an illegal contract is void ab initio.” People v. Caban, 318 Ill. App. 3d 1082, 1089 (2001). In support of the general rule, Williston cites Reilly v. Clyne, 234 P. 35, 37 (Ariz. 1925), for the proposition that “where a statute pronounces a penalty for an act, a contract founded on the act is void.” Williston, supra §19.43, at 523.
• And in another case Williston cites, the court said: . “It is the general rule of law that where a statute expressly forbids a person from entering into a certain kind of contract until he performs some precedent act, and imposes a penalty upon such person for attempting to enter into the forbidden contract, the contract itself is absolutely void ab initio and the party penalized has no rights thereunder ***.” Hunt v. Douglas Lumber Co., 17 P.2d 815, 819 (Ariz. 1933), quoted in Williston, supra §19.43, at 523.
• Thus, if LVNV had not registered before it bought Citibank’s interest in Trice’s debt, the contract between Citibank and LVNV was void ab initio because the contract violated the Act and the Act established that this kind of violation constituted a crime. LVNV could not acquire any enforceable rights by its criminal conduct. See Caban, 318 Ill. App. 3d at 1089. In particular, LVNV had no right to any payment from Trice when it sued him for failure to make the payments required under his contract with Citibank. The criminal and civil penalties the Act assigns to LVNV’s alleged acts (225 ILCS 425/4.5, 14, 14b (West 2008)) distinguish this case from Ford Motor.
• The trial court should not enforce a judgment in LVNV’s favor on a complaint LVNV filed in violation of criminal law, because to do so would abet LVNV in the commission of the crime of debt collection by an unregistered collection agency. 225 ILCS 425/4, 14, 14b (West 2008).
• We find that Trice has alleged adequate grounds for vacating the judgment entered in favor of LVNV. If LVNV disputes the accuracy of Trice’s factual allegations, the trial court should hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue before deciding whether to grant Trice’s motion to vacate the judgment.

CONCLUSION

• If LVNV had not registered in Illinois as a collection agency before it purchased Trice’s debt from Citibank, it acquired no rights by its crime of attempting to act as a collection agency. If LVNV had not registered before it filed the complaint against Trice, it committed a second crime of engaging in debt collection without proper registration. The crimes, if proven, make void the judgment LVNV obtained against Trice. Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings in accord with this opinion.

_______________________________

The reference to Ford Motor is to an Illinois Supreme Court ruling in Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Sperry, 214 Ill. 2d 371 (2005), another "failure to register" case involving the violation of a different rule where the court refused to void the judgment involved. In reaching its conclusion in that case, the state Supreme Court emphasized the fact that the rule requiring registration lacked civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance. It therefore concluded that because the rule involved was not enacted for the protection of the public, the contractual obligations owed could not be voided absent a showing of prejudice resulting from the failure to register.

The appeals court in LVNV Funding, LLC v. Trice distinguished the facts before it from Ford Motor by finding that, when passing the debt collection statute, the Illinois legislature declared "the practice as a collection agency by any entity in the State of Illinois" "to affect the public health, safety and welfare and to be subject to regulation and control in the public interest” and provided for both criminal and civil penalties for violation thereof ("A party who acts as a collection agency without proper registration commits a Class A misdemeanor and must also pay a civil penalty." 225 ILCS 425/4.5, 14, 14b (West 2008).)