Page 8 - John Hundley 2015

the notice had been placed in an envelope before mailing, the court said “minor defects will be
excused where service was made in substantial compliance” with the Supreme Court Rules.

- John Hundley, John@sharp-hundley.com, 618-242-0200
Illinois Court May Seize Foreign Stock Certificates

Section 8-112(a) of the Uniform Commercial Code (810 ILCS 5) has reversed a putative Illinois
rule prohibiting levy on certificated stock in foreign corporations, a panel in the Appellate Court in
Chicago has ruled.
That means a court acting in supplementary proceedings under
735 ILCS 5/2-1402 may order a judgment debtor’s certificated stock
in a foreign corporation be delivered up and sold, the panel ruled in
Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v. Envirobusiness, Inc., 2014 IL App
(1st) 133575.

Considering an 1895 case interpreting statutory provisions
similar to those now found in Article XII of the Code of Civil
Procedure (735 ILCS 5/12-101 et seq.), the court found that that
case was not binding authority and that in light of the adoption of U.C.C. § 8-112(a) it was no longer
persuasive authority either. Section 8-112(a) provides that certificated securities may be reached by
actual seizure where the certificates are located, and makes no distinction between Illinois and
foreign corporations.
Because the stocks were subject to levy, they also were subject to the turnover and sale
provisions of the supplementary proceedings statute, the court said.

- John Hundley, John@sharp-hundley.com, 618-242-0200
Holland Rejected on Judicial Estoppel; Supremes To Review

As we predicted when Holland v. Schwan’s Home Serv., Inc., 2013 IL App (5th)
110560, was decided (see Sharp Thinking, No. 97 (August 2013)), not all courts are
following that case on the issue of judicial estoppel. In Holland, the Fifth District
refused to estop a plaintiff who, as a Chapter 13 bankruptcy debtor, had not filed
amendments disclosing the accrual of a post-petition cause of action. The court
believed that for estoppel to apply there had to be a misstatement under oath. That
premise has been roundly rejected in Seymour v. Collins, 2014 IL App (2d) 140100.
According to Seymour, Holland stands merely for the proposition that when a
bankruptcy is dismissed before consummation, judicial estoppel does not apply.

However, the Appellate Court decision in Seymour may not be the last word. Late last month the
Supreme Court granted a petition to review that decision.

- John Hundley, John@sharp-hundley.com, 618-242-0200
Brenda\SharpThinking\#128.pdf
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
SHARP-HUNDLEY, P.C.

1115 Harrison, P.O. Box 906, Mt. Vernon, IL 62864 • Telephone 618-242-0200 • Facsimile 618-242-1170
www.sharp-hundley.com

Business Transactions • Litigation • Financial Law • Problem Finances • Real Estate • Corporate • Commercial Disputes
• Creditors’ Rights • Arbitration & Mediation • Estate Planning • Probate • Family Law

John T. Hundley: John@sharp-hundley.com; Rebecca L. Reinhardt: Rebecca@sharp-hundley.com;
Darren Taylor: Darren@sharp-hundley.com; Terry Sharp: Terry@sharp-hundley.com

Advertising Material