Professional Documents
Culture Documents
91017
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
FIRST MUNICIPAL DISTRICT
MOTION TO DISMISS
Now comes defendant, John Doe, through his attorneys, Michelle A. Weinberg
and the Legal Assistance Foundation, and hereby moves this Honorable Court pursuant to
Illinois Code of Civil Procedure Rule 2-615 to strike the affidavit and dismiss the complaint
filed by plaintiff in the above captioned cause. A copy of the Complaint is attached hereto.
1. Plaintiff filed this action claiming that $11,604.66 is due from defendant on a purported
2. The complaint does not set forth a cause of action for either an account stated or a breach
3. If this is a complaint for breach of contract, it should be dismissed for the following
reasons:
attached to the complaint, nor does the complaint state that no contract is available and
5. The complaint alleges that plaintiff “purchased” the “account,” but no assignment is
purporting to state that the defendant owes a sum of money. The affiant is identified
defendant’s signature, and alleges no facts in support of the alleged agreement. In fact,
to any terms or amount due related to this alleged account. [if applicable: The purported
8. In order to comply with The Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1642, the
original lender must have a signed request or application, or in absence of such writing,
there must be a record detailing the date and circumstances of the request or application
for credit. 15 U.S.C. § 1642. The plaintiff’s complaint includes none of these
requirements.
9. Further, under federal law, “[i]n any action by a card issuer to enforce liability for the
use of a credit card, the burden of proof is upon the card issuer to show that the use was
authorized or, if the use was unauthorized, then the burden of proof is upon the card
issuer to show that the conditions of liability for the unauthorized use of a credit card, as
set forth in subsection (a) of this section, have been met.” 15 U.S.C. §§ 1643(b).
Pollack v. Marathon Oil Co., 34 Ill. App.3d 861, 341 N.E.2d 101 (5th
Dist. 1976). Here, plaintiff alleges no facts supporting a claim for breach of contract,
11. If this is complaint for the account stated, it should be dismissed for the following
reasons:
12. A cause of action for an “account stated” must allege four elements: (a) transactions of a
monetary character involving the parties to the action; (b) the existence of accounts
transactions that all items of such accounts are true and that the balance is correct; and
(d) a promise to pay such balance. Canadian Ace Brewing Co. v. Swiftsure Beer Serv.
Co., 17 Ill.App.2d 54, 149 N.E.2d 447 (1st Dist. 1958); O’Neill v. Reamon, 335 Ill.App.
13. Plaintiff does not allege that it contacted the defendant at any time in regards to this
purported debt, or that any agreement was reached as to the balance allegedly due.
Instead, plaintiff merely makes the conclusory allegation that the defendant is “in
14. Plaintiff has failed to plead: (a) that there was any agreement between the parties
regarding accounts representing previous transactions; (b) that there was an agreement
that the items in an account were true; (c) that there was an agreement that the balance
struck was correct; and (d) that there was a promise to pay such balance. “In an action
for an account stated the complaint should allege all the material facts on which the
liability of the defendant depends.” 1 I.L.P. Account Stated § 6 (1988). See W.E.
Erickson Construction Inc. v. Congress-Kenilworth Corp., 132 Ill. App.3d 260, 268, 477
N.E.2d 513, 519 (1st Dist. 1985); and see Allied Wire Products, Inc. v. Marketing
Techniques, Inc., 99 Ill. App.3d 29, 40, 424 N.E.2d 1288, 1296 (1st Dist. 1981).
15. Just as the unsupported statement that “a contract existed between plaintiff and
defendant” fails to properly allege a contract cause of action, the bare allegation that an
account is in default with a balance due does not adequately plead an account stated
claim. “An account stated is an agreement between parties who have had previous
transactions of a monetary character that all the items of the accounts representing such
transactions are true and that the balance struck is correct, together with a promise,
Pettibone Mulliken Corp., 106 Ill. App.3d 1046, 1053, 436 N.E.2d 645, 651 (1st Dist.
1983) (“The meeting of the parties’ minds upon the correctness of an account is usually
the result of one party rendering a statement of account and the other party acquiescing
thereto.”); See Palisades Collection LLC v. Haque, NYS (Queens County Civil Court,
April 14, 2006). Here, there have been no previous transactions between plaintiff and
16. For the foregoing reasons, the complaint fails to state a cause of action for account stated.
17. Finally, the affidavit upon which the complaint relies is utterly incompetent and legally
insufficient and should be stricken and disregarded for the following reasons.
such, “she is authorized to make statements and representations herein.” Plaintiff Exhibit
1, ¶ 1. However, the affidavit does not establish the affiant’s familiarity with the original
source of information as to the alleged existence of the account and the amount allegedly
due, nor does it establish her knowledge regarding the manner or methods of the
plaintiff’s business dealings. It does not attempt to, and as demonstrated below, cannot
authenticate any documents upon which the conclusory statements are based. The affiant
affidavit, including any alleged amount due from the defendant. Outboard Marine Corp.
v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 154 Ill.2d 90, 132, 607 N.E.2d 1204, 1223 (1992).
19. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 191 requires that affidavits shall be “made from personal
knowledge of the affiant; shall set forth with particularity the facts upon which the claim,
counterclaim, or defense is based; shall have attached thereto sworn or certified copies of
all papers upon which the affiant relies; and shall affirmatively show that the affiant, if
sworn as a witness, can testify competently thereto.” Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty
20. The affiant must have personal knowledge of the facts supporting the amount of the
claim, i.e., how the original creditor’s business records were created and maintained, the
entire account history, and how the claimed balance was calculated as to principal and
interest. Apa v. National Bank of Commerce, 374 Ill.App.3d 1082, 872 N.E.2d 490 (1st
Dist. 2007).
21. Plaintiff’s affidavit does not attach or suggest that plaintiff possess the business records
of its assignor, nor could plaintiff’s employee competently testify as to the authenticity,
fact exist. Plaintiff’s affidavit is therefore utterly incompetent and insufficient. Apa,
supra; Cole Taylor Bank v. Corrigan, 230 Ill. App.3d 122, 595 N.E.2d 177, 181 (2nd
Dist. 1992); Champaign Nat’l Bank v. Babcock, 273 Ill. App.3d 292, 298, 652 N.E.2d
848 (4th Dist. 1995) (affidavit allowed where affiant was personally familiar with band’s
loan files, ledgers and records, and affidavit itemized payments made, interest charges,
and principal balances from the date of inception); See also, In re Vee Vinhnee, 2005 WL
3609376 (BAP 9th Cir. 2005) (normal evidentiary foundation must be established for
admission of business computer records, including familiarity with the way records are
accurate); C & W Asset Acquisition, LLC v. Somogyi, 136 S.W.3d 134, 139 (So. Dist.
business records because custodian of assignee served only as conduit in the flow of
records, and was unable to attest to the identity and mode of preparation of records
originally created by credit card company); Citibank v. Martin, 807 N.Y.S.2d 284
judgment will be assailable, even if the defendant defaults,” and must show principal
balances and additional charges from the date of inception).Palisades Collection, LLC v.
Gonzalez, surpa.
22. Testimony, whether live or in the form of an affidavit, to the effect that the witness has
reviewed a loan file and that the loan file shows that the debtor is in default is hearsay
and incompetent. Instead the actual records must be introduced after a proper foundation
is provided. Apa, supra; Pell v. Victor J. Andrew High School, 123 Ill. App.3d 423,
462 N.E.2d 858, 866 (1st Dist. 2984) (letter from corporation A to corporation B is
“just because a document is retained in the files of a business does not qualify it as a
Transit Authority, 9 Ill. App.3d 875, 877-878 (1st Dist. 1973); Cole Taylor
Bank v. Corrigan, supra; Champaign Nat’l Bank v. Babcock, supra; C & W Asset
Acquisition, supra; LLC v. Somogyl, supra. It is the business records that constitute the
evidence, not the testimony of the witness referring to them. See In re A.B., 308
23. The court must disregard unsupported, conclusory statements in an affidavit. Estate of
Blakely v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co., 267 Ill. App.3d 100, 105, 640 N.E.2d
961, 965 (2nd Dist. 1994), appeal denied, 159 Ill.2d 566, 647 N.E.2d 1008 (1995) (a
24. Because the sole basis of plaintiff’s claim, including the balance
25. Therefore, plaintiff has not established a claim for either breach of contract or for an
account stated, and the complaint should thereby be dismissed with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________
Michelle A. Weinberg
Michelle A. Weinberg
Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago
111 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 300
Chicago, Illinois 60604
312-347-8363
Attorney No. 91017