good morning everyone welcome to the human eye policy for first district first division well as the wires we're going to are going to step up introduce themselves tell us who you represent ok claiming that he had no damages he could could he could claim no damages and what's in the allegations right so was that your allegation is that it was damages were in the allegations but the judge said you couldn't even prove damages because he he had guaranteed the loan and all he you thousand and ninety and it included in that document a release right so that was the basis for the two six one night it was the senate in over reviews what it is yes ok stop the court in its ruling on the two six one nine court agreed that there was no maturity date in having a snippet from a hearing where the court admitted and the bank is that that they unilaterally added maturity dates to all of these these loans so the gregg as i understood at the court agreed that there was no maturity date but i guess the reason that the court felt that it was first of all that was worse confusing because if you look at the courts i believe aware of and knew that the bank that admitted that they actually added those maturity date when the loans came over to the south bank so i never really understood how the the judge would say that and bit at the  yeah i'm a liability issue yes against all about rates only sorry hearing we did have a hearing and i believe there are as there is a i'm pretty sure there is in the record a transcript  a there was a court order that hearing your case relies primarily right on the issue of you know the bank unilaterally changing the terms of the loan when it took over that bank america took over the cell right but didn't should you know and this is the my problem with your case right there's not a mystery as to what the loan documents say it's a written document right it's in the record right right in that written document in the record his no terminations date it allows the  to pay two percent for as long as it takes to pay off the loan in full right right and also allows either bank of america as successor lasalle to terminate the agreement with thirty days notice and it assuming there's a balance to that term in nation and only has the effect of stopping further draws is that right that's correct ok because it was very it was not it demanded so bank of america takes over decides we don't like this kind of instrument we don't want it we want to get out of this business and let's s terrible bad thing and told his customers were calling it in work but without using the thirty days right but simply saying you know we were declaring the entire balance to now which is contrary to the terms of the long run so your client calls all around the country countless executives and bank of america trying to track down this mysterious term that doesn't exist and he also doesn't exist but your cause of action is based on hit you know this this trick that was played out and that's what th that because in addition because your client signed the second sort of it is i see it you're quite had a choice if your client was so darn sure of bank of america was wrong he should have said you're wrong declare do and sue me and all who are perfect defense because here's your chance alone judge it doesn't say they can declare it to your client didn't do that instead he settled with them and got the consideration of getting the ex wife out of the deal  well two points i guess i'd make of that is when they said it was there there there was a maturity date on that alone that was one of their misstatements they also said that the bank documents to support the bank's claim which are to date that the bank would provide the defendants with copies of the document as evidence even maturity date that the bank would terminate the line of credit on august fifth you guys won and demand immediate payment of the outstanding balance on that date if was while i will go ahead and sign it myself not with the other guarantors and in the meantime i will continue to ask for that documentation and there is in the read in the record you make that point but the problem is here you know in the law we deem valid what people sign and trying to get other things you signed based on coersion is is virtually impossible under illinois law and i have you have to show there were some sort of wrongful conduct information he space said he didn't have a copy of his own document where he certainly had that but he justified in his deposition he knew that the bank was wrong yes but what what causes  but is a reasonable reliance on what they're saying he reasonably relied when he said to them that the state there is no date there's no date in the agreement show me the agreement they said but we have another document and it has the date on it  inducement economic duress but it's also lacks consideration now the court found that the consideration for that agreement was the agreement to guarantee so they could have at the time the second agreement was signed was covered your question is when he signed that agreement he was that he just said ok give me give me the documentation to prove to me that this thing had a maturity to show me that there is another document i have no other doc wasn't there a prior and we're going to start to go action against you and so here it is in late july so something he says ok you a small business he had employed fourteen people we were in and this for the economic situation comes into play we were in a very bad economic situation and that can't be the reason for the inducement but when you add to that this wrongful conduct and they say we have to pay you have to pay that off by by august fifth two thousand and nine those are all the things that are going through a person's head in a small business owners head as to how do i deal with the situation i have here the best thing for you to do at that point is that buy yourself some time let's try to figure this out let's try to which my client's account was one of these type of accounts they claim that all of those accounts had terms shit what was called the term sheet and maturity date on that and so once they get made that claim which i think was sometime in two thousand arbitrary date let's show us the the proof that this this claim that the all of these accounts had dirty deeds that's why you believe they did and that's where that's when we finally pushed that issue of let's see this other documentation we got a court order from a motion to compel to provide us with some subset of accounts of some information from those accounts so they could prove that other counts had this intricate date that went on for about after the judge made that or i think it was in september of two thousand and twelve or thirteen i think it's two thousand and thirteen it was you know i think there's two thousand and twelve then in april of two thousand and thirteen s months they said we're getting it we're pulling it together and it and i think in april of two thousand and thirteen they said we we just need a few more days and will happen and the judge gave them a like another twenty days or something like that and said no more extensions and then they came back and said ok we're willing to admit the knot of them have a church dates and then the issue is ok why are you sitting here saying that you believed that they all have  added a maturity date strong all these accounts when they came over from bank of america me from the south that there was no reason to show us a bunch of documentation from these other towns because because they've already admitted to the situation but the thing is they said well we believed it and that's the whole thing you know and you see it a lot in their response period is we believe that this state existed we all these accounts had these dates and so we said ok that's part of our misrepresentation plan let us prove that you couldn't believe that none of the account that nature and that's why we continue in money and we focus on sort of that moment in you know and in having spent five years doing nothing every single day but here a long tedious as i know bacon you know in america everyone's money without a feel what it feels shifting provision and now your client has racked up the potential for all then there was a request from the bank to settle and so i think we went and we even paid to go to mediation she did go to be a she gets ok which i take it was unsuccessful it was because when we got there we were they weren't really into visitation to settle they base it no you you know the maturity date was the maturity dating and you didn't pay that money at that time and we didn't do anything wrong and and there was another fifty two so i think it's a total one hundred three or something like that they're pretty well equal with your feet and presented at that time yes as part of the of the final  previously breach so i could set an argument so now instead of fifty two thousand this should be forty eight thousand or five thirty five thousand and that seems like an exercise to go through but it didn't make any sense at that point in time because the the judgments in my mind were illogical how can you say that they unilaterally added this maturity date and it at the same time say well you should have paid by that t none of that made any sense to me from from that from the perspective another matter made any sense to my client and i certainly couldn't explain it to my client did he make an offer to be certain that was rejected by the to my client in november of two thousand and nine he offered to pay seven hundred fifty dollars a month which was approximately two percent of the then outstanding balance he offered to pay seven hundred fifty dollars a month until it was off they rejected because that would have c at two percent a month it would have been fully paid off by about january two thousand and eighteen if he made the minimum pump payment every month at seven hundred fifty assume i never calculated that out but i assume such a rate would have been he would have been paid off by two thousand and fifteen or some sixteen sometime earlier than two thousand and eighteen but but but that was his argument from from july two thousand and nine to december two thousand and nine when he was still trying to save his company was let me at least pay the two percent a month or pay something that's reasonable don't demand for me the full payment  and that's so so he made that offer in november of two thousand and nine it was rejected they wanted all payment they one time i think said the full payment by two thousand and eleven was the later or if they'd be in the room in the final agreement was august two thousand and ten at one point i think they might have offered that at the let it be paid off by two thousand and eleven but they did they rejected his offer about anything further  deviate i guess a little bit from what i plan to save it just draw the court's attention to that the fact that early in the case when the first counter claim was filed judge taylor was hearing a case it dismissed all of the counts of the counterclaim with the exception of the misrepresentation and and i think is what is discussed with with with defense counsel there are certain elements that are required to be met for misrepresentation and it was the court's understanding in my understanding that there were these but counsel had stated not correctly that we had appeared of mediation not prepared to settle the case and that is just simply not a true statement so my client was with me and we were prepared and we did undertake to negotiate without  the agreement was not as the bank had been representing to him that there wasn't this this due date it was out there so the case images then there was a seventy three so one of our principal contentions and as the court as the trial for question was it before or put into the fields of data all of the systems had to be transferred over from one system to another so the people at bank of america make certain assumptions that this is not in the record but just intuitively to respond of course question you have huge companies with individuals doing the work and different people doing it and and going back and looking at it so they're presumptions and assumptions and v the belief was at the bank as as we've indicated that there must have been these terms she's there must have been more materials and something out of it and this has nothing to do with the termination nothing to do with of course it's all relevant but that's a negotiation process he made an offer as yes counsel reference he made an offer to actually pay more than the vs the settlement agreement had lower monthly payments than what he offered however the bank as indicated in the record had one of those guarantees so the bank agreed to release the guarantors and now they're off the wall and the  wrote stuff on the paper but they weren't signatures so it didn't skate the bank's attention that it came back not fully executed and that was part of those conversations the bank didn't take any action saying this isn't our agreement we're sending  debt to the bank as admittedly i don't want if you don't want to use the word close that's fine but right as as the defend itself as they have recognized the bank came back to them and said this doesn't work and wanted to do something different when the resulted in but nonetheless the bank has sued on the second all right has your underlying key the settlement agreement corporates the first and second lines those are referred to as the loan documents and it corporates both of them ok so it's a it's a combination it's not just one that his business was harmed because of the economy that's all legit nothing to do with this this line of crap that nothing is and i don't believe that he said in his counterclaim that we wouldn't give him more money it was because of that if that's not that's not how it's style but that is at least trying to get money from other banks and they would give it to long because of this issue actually i believe that he said he did get a loan from another bank it was too late ok ok but so so he's not complaining the wrong doing isn't that we wouldn't give him more money the wrongdoing the only one doing alleged is that we told him something that wasn't correct ok and that's been admitted that was a mistake and that was referred to  sudden agreement so the defendant who wanted to get something comes back makes an offer november other conference there but it goes back and forth in december a settlement agreement including releases executed and that should the release absolve the bank the things that happens in between now even if even if you don't have that mr right is here has been i understand your point you know why would you do that but he what are they going to come up with that they must have something perhaps someone might have reasonable but doubt but that's not how he testified he testified unequivocally that he didn't believe yet he didn't he didn't know it you don't remember ever signing it his know and all of the you know the court recognized through the extraordinary cost all derives not all significantly derives from proceeding under the expectation that there they didn't realize and understand that his right he has to rely on the misrepresentation has to rely on a false state right but he didn't and he said he did and he says it multiple on multiple occasions and in multiple ways there's no ambiguity mr hagen let me ask you the same question i asked mr wilson beginning where in the minor chronology did bank of america admit that there was not in fact some phantom document out there that impose a termination date was a before and after the summit agreement it was after oh don counsel mentions of the october two thousand not an october two thousand and nine letter this is we're trying to find it several finally i think it was october two thousand and nine late october two thousand and nine and i believe the letter is attaches that the day that he the attorney came back and said ok we we can't we don't have the documentation but he said that the loan was still being called on that date on october fifth that it properly been called on the good august that the two thousand and nine and continued to say that they either had to pay it  and to have discovery motion in lieu of discovery i think it was filed in april of two thousand for thirteen they said we we are willing to admit that none of the loans had charity dates they were all a sign maturity dates when they came over from the s all of these that they believed that these loans had maturity dates because all of the loans of this type had maturity dates and term sheets and after as they said the point chronology where they finally agreement that they would guarantee the fully operational line of credit through october aug fifth two thousand and ten there is absolutely nothing in the record supporting that the if he's reading that from the face of the document the second i see document it says it is to the bank's discretion as to whether to get any further loans on the on that particular line of credit and my client's affidavit states that in august two thousand so less than a month after he signed that agreement they came back and said we want you to sign another agreement that says you get no further  is there's absolutely nothing in the record to support the consideration the judge claimed existed for that second l c and it's also argument now now into response brief or the counse the the consideration for the july at the december two thousand and nine modification settlement agreement was the release of the two different tours to the guarantors well i still believe as a matter of law those two characters were released of their claim that's where are our counter claims come in for breach of duty or consumer fraud act and so obviously if our counter claims end up with a a judgment of damages judgment that could debate i mean that's something we could argue about as but i think the counterclaims and the damages to my client they at least it has been said of all the moms you have to claim that might be the most difficult what's that we can image that all the mountain should have to climb that one might be the most difficult payment they only stopped making payments when the when bank of america said he can't make any more payments on that debt and any other questions i think you counsel the court will take the matter under advisement in court since