Doucet, Troy. 23 Legal Defenses to Foreclosure: How to Beat the Bank <www.foreclosure-fight.

com>
*
I.R.A.C.
*
( Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion )
A motion is a document that requests the court take some kind of action, like when a
borrower would ask the court for more time to file an Answer. A Memorandum in Support of
the motion or a Memorandum in Opposition are almost always attached to the motion and
outline the factual reasons why the motion should be granted. These memoranda outline the legal
argument supporting or opposing the motion. To be effective, the memoranda must be based on
solid legal principles and be supported by the facts. Using the IRAC form in writing the
memoranda enables the court to follow a legal argument in a manner it is used to seeing.
Law students are taught to write memoranda in the IRAC form from the very first class. IRAC
stands for Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion. The Issue is a brief statement of the
dispute. The Rule is the section that contains any elements or statutory requirements that must
be proven, and should be followed by a citation of the statute in question, or citation to a case
from that courts jurisdiction that explains the elements of rule. The Application is how the facts
support or oppose the particular Rule elements. This is where the persuasive selling of the
argument comes into play. The application part of IRAC should start with the word Here, to tell
the court the writer is moving into the application stage. The Conclusion is a brief sentence
summing up what was said. Here is an example of a brief IRAC argument:
For ease of reading, each IRAC part is colored differently:
The issue is whether Bob can recover damages from lender for fraud. The elements of fraud
in Illinois are 1) Lender made a statement of material fact, 2) the lender knew or believed to
be false, 3) the borrower had a right to rely on the statement, 4) the borrower did rely on
the statement, 5) the lender intended to induce defendants to rely on the statement, and 6)
the borrower was damaged in reliance. Siegel v. Levy Organization Development Co., 153 Ill.
2d 534, 542-43, 180 Ill. Dec. 300, 607 N.E. 2d 194 (1992)
The first element of fraud requires the lender made a state of material fact. Here, the lender
told Bob the loan would be a thirty year fixed date. (Bob Affidavit, p. 1) Thus, the lender
made a statement of material fact.
The second element of fraud requires the lender knew or believed the statement to be false.
Here, the paperwork the lender presented to Bob for signing indicated the loan was a two
year adjustable rate mortgage (ARM). As evidenced by the lenders broker, Patty
Jones, the lender never intended to provide Bob a thirty year fixed loan. (Patty Jones
Affidavit, p.1) Thus, the lender made a statement it knew to be false.
. . .after each element is discussed in its own paragraph, an overall conclusion is stated at the
end
. . .In conclusion, Bob is entitled to recover damages from the lender for common law fraud.