SECOND DIVISION FEBRUA RY 1, 2011
No. 1-10- 0855 UNIFUND C CR PA

RTNER S, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Pl ai ntif f -Ap pel l ee, ) Coo k C oun ty ) v. ) No. 08 M1 162091 ) MOHAM MAD SHA

H, ) Ho no r ab le ) Denn

is McGui re, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g. JUS TI CE CON NOR S d elivered t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Pr esiding J ust ice Cu nningham and J ust ice Kar nezis co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd op inion. OPINI ON Thi s a ppe al pre sents two c erti f i ed que sti ons . F i rs t, un der s ec ti on 8 b of

the Col l ec ti on A genc y A ct (2 25 I LC S 42 5/8 b (W es t 200 8)) , ca n a col l ec ti on a genc y es tab l i sh an as si gn men t of
ac cou nts rec ei va bl e f or col l ec ti on p urp ose s th

roug h d ocu men ts a ttac he d a s exh

i bi ts to a
co mplaint, wher e t he ident ifi cat ion o f the acc ou nt s t ra nsferr ed, t he co nsider at ion p aid, and t he ef f ec ti ve da te of the tran sf er of pa rticul ar a cc oun ts a re i n m ul ti ple i nc orporate d doc

um en ts or affidavits ? Sec ond , d oe s a c ollect ion ag ency have st anding t o s ue u nder sec t ion 2 -4 03 o f the Code of Ci

vi l Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-403 (West 2008)), where that agency ple ads and proves that it has l

egal title to accounts receiv

abl e assi gned “ for coll

ection purposes onl

y” ? W e answe r t he first que st ion in t he affirmat ive with q ualificat ions, and t he se co nd qu est ion in t he aff irm ative
. I. BACKG ROUND We l i m i t our reci tation of the un derl y i ng f acts of thi s ca se to onl

y those th at areNo. 1-10- 0855

2

necess ary f

or a full di

scussi on of the certif

ie d questions. The

is sues presen

ted by the certif ie d qu es t io ns a r o se in t he co nt ex t o f a mo t io n t o dis miss un de rse ct io n 2
- 61 9 o f t he Co de o f Civ il Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619 ( West 2008)), so for the purpose o ur disc ussion of the certif

ie d questions we

wil l rel y on f acts all eged i n the com pla in t and its attached af

fi davi ts. See Coady v. Harpo, Inc. , 308 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 15 3, 158- 59 (19 99). In 19 96 , de f

en da n t Mo h am mad Shah open ed a cre di t ca rd ac cou n t wi th Ci ti b an k ( Sou th Da kota ) N .A . O v er

th e n ex t n i n e y ea rsde f en da n t ra n upa s i gn i f i ca n t b al an ce on th e acc oun

t,
even tual l y total i ng cl ose to $16 ,00 0. D ef

en da nt a l l eg edl y f ai l ed to make m

onth l y pa y men ts on the deb t as req

ui red b y his ac coun

t contract wi

th Ci tib an k an d he ev en tuall y f el l i nto def aul t. Rat her t han pe rso nally collect t he de bt , ho weve r, Citibank cho se t o s ell its inte re st in defenda nt 's
ac co un t t o a t hir d p ar t y. T his d ec isio n be ga n t he se r ies o f t r an sa ct io ns t ha t ar e a t iss ue in t his
cas e. Accordin

g to the compl

ai nt, Citi ban k sold def endan t's account to a compan

y c alle d Unifund P or t folio A, L.L .C ., on O ct obe r 3 , 2 006 . O n t hat same d ay, P or t folio A so ld t he
ac cou n t to C l i f f s P ortf oli o A cq uisi ti on I, L .L .C . O n

Ma y 28 , 20 03 , C l i f

f s P ortf oli o as si gn ed i ts l eg al i n terest i n th e acc oun

t to Pa l i sa de s C oll ecti on , L .L .C ., i

n ord er to en ab l e P al i sa de s to
co llect o n t he ac co unt . H ow ever , C lif fs Po rt folio p ur po rt ed t o r et ain an eq uit able inte re st in the de bt it se lf. F inally, o n t hat sa me d ay P alisa de s a ss igne d it s int er es t in t he a cc o unt t o t he p laint iff i n th i s c as e, Un

i f un d C CR Pa rtner s. Si m pl y pu t, the c om pl ai n t al l eg es th at l eg al ti tl e to de f en da n t' s a cc oun t pa ss ed f rom th e or i gi n al cred i tor to p l ai n ti f f th rough a s eri es of i n ter med i ate t r an sa ct io ns. T he co mpla int alle ge s t ha t pla int iff no w h o lds su fficie nt t it le t o t he ac co un t inNo. 1-10- 0855

3

ord er f or i t to b ri n g sui t ag ai n st d ef en da n t an d c oll ect th e deb

t. Plaint iff 's co mplaint w as d ismissed t hre e t imes for failure t o a deq uat ely all ege and supp ort the ch

ai n of titl e tha t is des cri be d ab ove, a

nd i t was n ot until plai ntif f f i l ed i ts thi rd amende d co mplaint t hat t he se que nce o f alleged t ra nsac t ions be came c lear. In su ppo rt of t he alle gations on the f

ace of the com

pla in t, plai ntif f attached the af

fi davi t o f Bobb y C arnes, an
em ploy ee of pl ai ntif f, i n wh ic h Carn es expl ai ned the seri

es of transactions. Carnes f urther testifi ed that he had rev

ie wed pl ai ntif f' s i nternal records related to defendan t's account, whi ch al l eg edl y de mons trate d that l

eg al ti tl e to the acc oun

t ha d b een tr ansf erred to plai nti f f f or
co llectio n pur po ses. Car nes a t t ache d a nu mber o f do cument s t o his a ffi davit t hat pur po rt ed t o be contracts o f s al e and ass ign me nt for defe

ndan t's account along wi

th ot her i ncorporat ed agreements. De f en da n t ag ai n mov ed to di sm i ss th e c om pl ai n t, a rgui n g th at th e pur por ted as si gn men ts of his account were in

adequate under secti on 8b of the C ollection A gency Act (225 ILCS 425/8b (Wes t 200 8)) . De f

en da nt ass erte d that the a ss i gn men ts w ere i nv al i d b ec au se

cru ci al i nf orm ati on was scattered over mul

tiple documen

ts. In essence , defen

dant argued that the assignm ents f ai le d to sa ti sf y se cti on 8 b b ec au se

the ac cou nt i nf orm ati on, consi derati on p ai d, a nd ef f ec ti ve da te of
as si gn men t weren ot co n

tai n ed i n a s i n gl e docu men t. A f ter f ul l b rief i n g a n d oral argu men t, the c i rc ui t cou rt d en i ed de f en da n t' s m oti on to dismiss. H ow ever , t he circ uit co ur t ack now ledge d t hat t he law in t his are a is unc lear. At t he
r eq ue st o f bo t h p ar t ies , t he cir cu it co ur t ce r t ified t wo qu es t io ns f o ro ur r ev iew un de rI llino is Su pr eme Co ur t Ru le 3 08 ( eff. Fe b. 1, 19 94 )
. We gr an t ed de fen da nt 's p et it io n fo rlea ve t o ap pe al,No. 1-10- 0855

4

and this case is now before us. II. AN AL YSIS Th e c er t ified q ue st io ns p re se nt t wo se pa ra t e bu t re lat ed issu es . F irs t , c an a pla int iff properly ple ad the existence of an assi gnm ent under section 8b of the C ollection A gency Act (225 ILCS 4 25/8b (West 2008 )) t hrough mul tiple documen

ts at tached t o t he complain t, or must t he as sig nme nt be ev ide nc ed by a s ing le d o cu men t ? S ec o nd , do es an as sig ne e fo rco llec t io n o nly of a debt have s t anding t o s ue in it s o wn name? Because this appeal

is bef ore us pursuant to Ill

in ois Suprem

e Court Rule 308 (eff

. Feb. 1, 1994), our anal

ys is is “stri ctly li mi ted to the certif

ie d question[s] presen

ted to the court .” Long v. Elborno , 397 Ill . App. 3d 982, 988 (2010). We revi ew de novo the q ues tions of

l aw pre sen

ted. See id. “' “

Ou r tas k i s to a ns wer th e c erti

f i ed que sti ons rath er th an to rul e on the propriety of any underl yi ng order.” ' [Ci

tation.]” Id. (quot in

g Giangiulio v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital , 365 Il l . Ap p. 3d 82 3, 829 ( 2006) ).

A. St an din g t o File Su it as Ass ign ee fo rCo llec t io n O nly W e w i l l addre ss the que sti on of sta nd i ng f i rs t be ca us e if an as si gneeof a debt f or collection only

has no standin

g to brin g suit in its own nam

e, t hen the question of how it must pl ead or estab l i sh such an as si gn men t i s i rre l ev an t. St anding is t he r equ irement t hat a laws uit canno t co mmence unless a plaint iff has “ ' “som e i nj ury i n f act to a l egally

recogniz ed i

nterest.” ' [Citation.] ” In re Marriage of Rodriguez , 131 Ill . 2d 273, 280 (1989) (quo ting In re Estate of Burgeson , 1 25 I ll. 2d 4 77, 486 (1 988 )) . As our supreme court has sum ma rized, “The purpose of the doctrine of standi ng i s to ensure thatNo. 1-10- 0855

5

courts are deci di ng a ctual , spe ci f

i c con trovers i es, a

nd n ot abstra ct questions or m

oot iss ues . [ Cit at io n. ] T he pr imar y fo cu s o f st an din g is t ha t a p ar t y hav e a r ea l int er es t in t he ac t io n a nd in it s o ut co me. [ Cit at io n. ] Alt ho ug h st an din g is de sig ne d t o pr ec lud e p er so ns h av ing no int er es t in
a con troversy f rom b ri ngi ng s ui t, it shoul d not pre cl

ude a va l i d sui t from be i ng l i tig ated. [ Cit at io n. ] ** * I n d ec idin g w he t he ra p ar t y has st an din g, a c o ur t mus t lo o k a t t he pa r t y t o se e if he or she wi

ll be b enef itted by the reli ef gran ted. [Citation.]” Id. at 279-80. Il l i n oi s c our ts h av e n ot y et ex pl i ci tl y h el d th at a n as si gn ee f or c oll ecti on

h as sta n di n g to bring a suit in its o wn name in o rd er t o c ollect a de bt t hat is ow ned by a p ar t y who r et ains benef ici al ownershi

p. The case closest t o a holding on thi s point is Kennedy v. Deere & Co. , 142 Il l . Ap p. 3d 78 1, 785 ( 1986) . Howev er, Kennedy

onl y sta ted i n pa ss i n g a n d w i th out ref eren ce to Ill in ois preceden

t t hat “[u]nder F ederal

comm on la w, no les s than the l

aw of thi s State, an assi gnee f or co ll ection m ay sue as the real

party i n i nterest.” Id. (citi

ng Staggers v. Otto Gerdau Co. , 359 F.2d 292 (2d. Cir. 1966)); accord Village of Westville v. Loitz Brothers Cons truction Co. , 16 5 I ll. A pp . 3d 33 8, 33 9- 40 ( 19 88 )
. Giv en t he lac k o f a c lea rho ldin g o n t his is su e, we will add re ss it as a que st ion o f fi rst impress ion. When inte rp re t ing a st at ut e, we “a sce rt ain and g ive effect t o t he o ver all intent of t he drafters.” Knolls Condominium Ass'n v. Harms , 202 Il l . 2d 450 , 458 (2 002). W here two or more statutes r elate to the s am

e su bj ect, the y are “ to be rea d ha rm oniousl y so that n o provi sions a

re rendered i noperative.” Id. at 458 -5 9. Impo rt ant ly f or ou r r eso lut ion o f this ce rt ifi ed q ues t ion, “[i]t is also a fun

dam ental rule of statut ory construction that where there ex is ts a general sta tutor y prov i si on an d a sp ec i f i c statu tory prov i si on , e i th er i n th e s am e or i n an oth er act, b othNo. 1-10- 0855

6

relati ng to t he sam

e subj ect, t he speci

fi c provis ion c ontro ls

and sh ould be applie d.” Id. at 459. Regardi ng the sub je ct of assi

gnm ent and b rin gin g sui t in a c ollection agen

cy's own n

am e, there are two co ntrollin

g statut es. The f

irst statute is f

ound in the Code of Ci

vi l Procedure (735 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. (West 2008) ). Sect ion 2-403 stat es: “T he as sig ne e a nd o wn er o f a n o n- ne go t iab le c ho se in a ct io n ma y su e t he r eo n in hi s or her own nam

e. Such a person sh

all i n hi s or her plea

din g under oath all

ege that he or she i s the actual b ona fi de owner thereof, and se

t forth how and when he or sh e ac qui

red ti tle .” 735 ILCS 5/2-40 3 (West 200 8). A chose i n acti on i s a “

proprietary

ri ght i n pe rsonam, such a s a deb t owed by another pe

rson , a sh are i n a j oi n t-s tock com pa n y , or a cl ai m f or dam ag es i n tort. ” B l ack' s L aw

Di cti on ar y 23 4 ( 7th ed. 1999). Choses i

n acti on li ke pl ai ntif f' s debt i n thi s case are as signab le . See Loyola Univ ers ity Me dica l Cen ter v

. Med C are HMO , 180 Ill . App. 3d 471, 478 (1989) (citin g Ginsberg v. Bull Dog Auto

Fir e Ins uran ce As

s'n , 328 Il l . 571, 57 3 (192 8)). Altho ugh I lli nois c ase s have not expli ci tly addressed thi s i ssue, long-standi ng m odern practice i

n other jurisdi ctions al

lows t he o wner of a debt t o t ra nsfer t he ent ire cho se in act ion o ut right t o a t hird p ar t y, re t aining no ownershi p in terest in i t, o r to transfer onl

y the owner's l egal in terest in the action, retaini ng an equi table or benef ic ia l i nterest. See Rosenblum v. Dingfelder , 111 F.2d 406, 407 (2d Cir. 1940) (discus si ng sta nd i ng of as si gnee s i n f ed era l pra cti ce ). In the con tex t of a debt, thi s ty

peof pa rti al as si gn men t mea ns tha t the own er of the debt transf

ers i ts ri gh t to br i ng a l eg al ac ti on f or col l ec ti on of th e deb t to a t h i rd pa rty i n ex ch an ge f or s om e c on si dera ti on , but reta

i n s th e ri gh t to
rece i ve the a mount owed

wh en i t is coll ected. S ee, e.g. , Titus v. Wallick, 306 U.S. 282, 289No. 1-10- 0855

7

(1939 ) (di scu ssi

ng a n a ssi gnm en t for col l ection un der Ne w York state l aw). The second statute is f

ound in the Coll ection A gency Act (225 ILCS 425/1 et seq . (West 20 08 )). Se cti

on 8b sta tes th at “ [a ]n

ac cou n t m ay b e a ss i gn ed to a c oll ecti on

ag en cy ** * to enabl e collection of the acco unt in the agency 's nam e as assignee for the credito r.” 225 ILCS 425/8 b (W

est 200 8). When the tw o st atut es are read t oget her, it is apparent that an assi gnee for collecti on has st anding t o br ing suit in its o wn name in o rd er t o c ollect a de bt . Alt hou gh se ct ion 2 -4 03 o f the Co de o f Civil Pr o ce du re ap pe ar s t o limit st and ing t o a p ar t y who is “a ss igne e a nd o wne r ” o f a debt (735 ILCS 5/2-403 (West 2008)), t he ex pli ci t t erms of secti on 8b of the C ollection A gency A ct dem on strate th at s ecti on

2- 40 3 en com

pa ss es n ot onl y as si gn ee s w h o tak e c om pl ete
ow ner ship o f an acc ou nt but also t hos e who merely t ake legal t itle fo r t he pu rp os e o f co llecting the deb t whi

l e the credi tor retai ns the b enef i cial i ntere st an d equ i tabl e ti tle
. Ba se d o n t he pla in lan gu ag e o f t he st at ut es , we an sw er t he se co nd ce r t ified qu es t io n in t he affirmat ive and ho ld t hat a co llectio n age ncy has st anding t o s ue u nder sec t ion 2 -4 03 o f the Code of Ci

vi l Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-403 (West 2008)), where that agency ple ads and proves that it has l

egal title to accounts receiv

abl e assi gned “ for coll

ection purposes onl

y.” B. Requi remen ts for Pleadi

ng A ssi gnm ent Under Section 8b Of course, sect ion 2-403 of the Co de of Civ il Pro cedure o nl

y grants plai

ntif f i n this cas e t he r ight t o file suit in its o wn name in o rd er t o c ollect a de bt . I n or der t o s t at e a c laim to t he debt, plai ntif f m ust still pl ead and es

tabli sh that i t is an assi gnee of the

origi nal creditor. See 225 IL CS 42 5/ 8b (e ) (W

est 20 08 ) (b ar

ri n g l i ti ga ti on i n a c oll ecti on

ag en cy ' s n am e i n ord er to co l l ect aNo. 1-10- 0855

8

debt unl ess the agen

cy is an ass ign ee). We wi

ll now exam

in e the fi rst certifi ed question, wh

ic h de als wi th th e req ui re men ts f or p l eadi n g such an as si gn men t. Un der s ecti on

8b of th e C oll ecti on

A gen cy A ct, a c oll ecti on

ag en cy ca n b ri n g sui t to col l ec t on a deb tor' s a cc oun t onl y wh en “ [t]h e a ss i gn men t i s m an i f ested b y a w ri tten ag re em en t, sep ar at e fro m and in add itio n t o a ny doc ument intend ed fo r t he pu rp os e o f list ing a de bt wit h a coll ection agen

cy .” 225 ILCS 425/8b(a) (West 2008). Cruci ally , the Collection A

gency Act
ma ndates that “[t]he documen t mani fes ting the assi

gnm ent shal l s peci fi cally state and in

cl ude: (i) the ef fecti ve date of the ass ign

me nt; and (i i) the cons ide

ration f or t he ass ign

me nt.” Id. The
cer t ifi ed q ues t ion r aises t wo issues re gar ding t his sect ion. First , d oe s t his sect ion mean t hat t he
as sig nme nt mus t be man ifes t ed by o nly a s ing le d o cu men t o rmay it co nsis t o f mult iple in corpo rated documents? Second, i f the as signm

ent can b e m

anifes ted by mul tiple i ncorporat ed do cument s, w hat must t hos e do cument s co nsist of in o rd er t o s at isfy sect ion 8 b? As w e h av e a lre ad y no t ed , o ur o ve r ar ch ing go al in c o nst ruin g a st at ut e is t o “a sc er t ain and gi ve ef fect to t he overal

l i ntent of the draf

ters.” Knol

ls C ondom iniumAss'

n , 202 Ill . 2d at 458. “The b est evidence of le gis la tive i ntent is the la nguage of the

statut e, and whe

n possi ble, the court should in

terpret the la

nguage of a

statut e accordin

g to its pl ai n an d ordinary

me ani ng.” In re Donald A.G. , 2 21 I ll. 2d 2 34, 246 (2 006 ). Ho weve r, “[w] e do not co nst ru e wo rd s and phrases of

a statut e i

n i solati on; i

nstead, all provisi ons of a statute are viewed as a wh ole.” Id. We n eed not accept t he l

iteral me ani ng of the statut e i f i

t would produce an absurd resul t. See id. Re ga r di ng t he fir st iss ue , t he ke y ph r as es in s ec t io n 8 b a r e “ as sig nme nt man ife st ed by aNo. 1-10- 0855

9

wr itt en ag re ement ” and “do cument manifesting t he as signment .” A st rict ly l iter al rea ding o f the term “docum

ent” would i

ndicate that t he ass ign

me nt can b e m

anifes ted by only a si ngle phy si cal do cu men t . Se e B lac k' s L aw Dic t io na ry 49 8 ( 7t h e d. 19 99 )
. Ho we ve r , t his in t er pr et at io n is i nc onsi sten t wi th the term “w ri tten ag reem en t,” whi ch i s a s i gni f i can tly broad er term and ref ers to the parties'

entire b argain

in written f orm. See id. at 67. When the two phrases are read t og et her , t hey imply

t hat t he as signment of t he ac co unt must be manifest ed by a leg al do cument i n th e f orm al se n se , that is, b y

a w ri tten con tra ct of as si gn men t. Th i s readi n g i s c on siste

n t wi th the fact t hat assi

gnm ents are governed b

y c ontract la

w. See Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Amer icanHard

w are Manufac ture

rs As s'n , 387 Ill . App. 3d 85, 99 (2008). We therefore read section 8b to me an that the assi

gnm ent of an a

ccount to a coll

ection agen

cy mus t be ma nifes ted in a wr itt en co nt ra ct t hat is co mplet ely separ at e fro m any cont ra ct t o list t he ac co unt wit h t he coll ection ag ency . It i s a f un da men tal pri nc i pal of con tract l aw tha t “ an i ns trum en t may i nc orporateal

l or part o f an ot her i nstrume nt by referen ce.” Provident Fe

deral Sa vings &

Loan Ass'nv. Realty Centre, Ltd. , 97 Il

l . 2d 187 , 192-9 3 (198 3). However, the referen ce m ust demonstrate “an in tention to incorporate t he docum ent and m ake i t part of the contract.” Arneson v. Board of Trustees , 210 Ill . App. 3d 844, 849-5 0 (199 1). Applying t his principle he re , if an as signment unde r se ct ion 8 b must be manifest ed by a w rit t en co nt ra ct , it t hen fo llows t hat t he t er ms of t he assignment may be found in either t he co nt ra ct of a ssignment itse lf or in any o t her do cument incor po ra t ed by r efer ence . T his res olves t he first issue p re sent ed by t he ce rt ifi ed q ues t ion, and we hol d that an assi

gnm ent under section 8b can

be establ is hed through m

ulti ple documen ts thatNo. 1-10- 0855

10

are i nc orporated b

y ref eren ce i nto the c ontract of

ass i gnm en t. Thi s i s not the end of the discussi on, however, becaus e the certif ie d question al

so asks whet her do cument s su ch as t hos e at t ache d t o t he co mplaint in t his case sat isfy sect ion 8 b's requirem ents. Bef ore discuss in

g this point, we em

phasi ze that we take no position on wh ether t hese par t icular do cument s ar e su ffi cient t o p ro ve an a ssignment unde r se ct ion 8 b for t he pu r po se s o f st at ing a c laim. T ha t is a mat t er fo rt he cir cu it co ur t t o de t er mine a nd is no t pr o pe r ly bef ore us on this appea

l. See Long , 39 7 I ll. A pp . 3d at 98 8. Ho we ve r , in t he int er es t o f fully answeri ng the certif

ie d question, we wi

ll use several of

these documen

ts as exam

ple s f or o ur discussi on of section 8b's requirem ents. In ord er f or a pl ai n ti f f to properl

y pl ead a n d e sta b l i sh an as si gn men t of an ac cou n t,
sec t ion 8 b re quir es t hat t he co nt ra ct of a ssignment “spe cifically st at e and include” bot h t he eff ective date of the assignm ent and the co nsiderat ion gi ven f or t he assi

gnm ent. 225 ILCS 425 /8b (a) (Wes t 200 8). Im pl i ci t i n th e s tatute i s a thi rd req ui rem en t tha t the con tract of assignment spe cifically

st at e t he r elevant ident ify ing informat ion fo r t he ac co unt t hat is being
ass i gne d. See

225 IL CS 42 5/8b

(We st 2008 ). We pr eviou sly addr esse d se ct ion 8 b's first t wo re quir ement s in Business Service s Bureau, Inc. v. Webster , 2 98 I ll. App. 3d 2 57 ( 199 8) . I n Webster, w e fo und t hat a pu rp or t ed a ssignment failed t o s pec ifi

cally sta t e t he effect ive dat e o f assignment beca use it co nt ained t wo different dat es, and t hat it also failed t o s pec ifi cally sta t e t he co nsider at ion g iven beca use t he
cons i derati

on wa s de scri

be d onl y va guel y as “ ‘an agree d to percentag e of

the a mount col

l ected.’ ” Id. at 259 . O ur inter pr et at ion o f the re quir ement s o f sect ion 8 b was guid ed by t he legislat iveNo. 1-10- 0855

11

po licy under lyi

ng t he Co llectio n Agenc y Act, which we summarize d as demand ing t hat “the term s of the as si gn men t be ope n a nd pre ci se to prote ct the c ons

um er f rom rep eti ti ve l i ti ga ti on and deb t colle ction ab

use.” Id. at 2 60;se e al so 2 25 I LC S 42 5/1 a (W es t 200 8) ( i denti

f y i ng one of t he Co llectio n Agenc y Act's public po licy object ives as “t o p ro t ect co nsumer s ag ainst debt coll ection an

d ab use ”). W i th th es e req ui re men ts i n m i n d, we wi l l

n ow d i sc us s th e docu men ts th at a reatta ch ed to pla int iff's co mpla int
. T he se do cu men t s fa ll int o t hr ee br o ad ca t eg o r ies t ha t may be ge ne r ally de scri b ed as af f i da v i ts, con tra cts of as si gn men t, a n d i n cor porate d docu

men ts. W e tu rn f i rs t to the Carnes a

ff ida vi t, in wh ic h the af fi ant, an em

ploy ee of pl ai ntif f, states that he has

“revi ewed t he elec t ro nic, c omp ut er ized r eco rd s o f [de fendant ]” t hat ar e mainta ined by plaintiff. T he affiant t he n t es t ifies t ha t de fen da nt 's a cc o un t wa s a ss ign ed by t he o r igin al c r ed it o rt o Un ifun d P o r t fo lio A, L.L.C., whi

ch then assi gned i t t o Cliff s Port fol io Ac quis ition I, L.L.C.. The account was then f urthe r ass i gne d to Pali sades C oll ection L.L .C., wh

i ch f i na l l y ass i gne d the

acc ount to def

endan t. Attached to t he af

fi davi t are bil ls of sal e and ass ign

me nt that purpo rt t o represent these various
ass i gnm en ts. Pla int iff's us e o f t he affid av it in su pp o r t o f it s c laim t o de fen da nt 's a cc o un t is problem atic. Af fi davi ts are “ 'a s

ubsti tut e for testim

ony taken in open court' ” ( Robidoux v. Oliphant , 201 Ill . 2d 324, 338 (2002) (quo ting Fooden v. Board of Governors of State Colleges & Univer sities of Illinois , 48 Il

l . 2d 580 , 587 (1 971))), but t hi s does not mean that t hey are also sub sti tutes f or form al l y ex ecuted contracts of assi

gnm en t unde r the C oll ection A gen cy Act. Se ct io n 8 b e xp licit ly re qu ire s p r o o f o f an as sig nme nt t ha t “sa t isfie s t he r eq uir eme nt s o f t hisNo. 1-10- 0855

12

Sec t ion” ( 225 ILC S 4 25/ 8b( e) (Wes t 200 8) ). As we have a lread y found , o ne o f sect ion 8 b's
r eq uir eme nt s is t ha t an as sig nme nt be pr o ve n by a wr it t en co nt r ac t o f as sig nme nt . T he pla in l an gu ag e of th e statu te prov i de s on l y a s i n gl e m eth od of provi n g th e ex i ste n ce of an as si gn men t, and t his metho d do es no t include a ffi davit s. G iven tha t “[t ]he plain langua ge o f a st at ut e is t he most reli abl e i ndication of l

egi sl ative in tent” ( JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Earth Foods, Inc. , 238 Ill. 2d 455 , 4 61 ( 201 0) ), t he legislat ur e did no t intend t o a llow as signment s t o be pr ove n by af f i dav i t. Thi s concl

usi on is rein forced by the le gis la

tive s tatement that the Collection A gency Act i s i nten ded to “ protect cons

um ers a gai nst deb t coll

ection ab use .” 225 ILCS 425/1 a (West 200 8). Limi t ing t he met hod s o f pro of o f an assig nment t o o nly writt en co nt ra ct s fur t her s t his legislat ive pol i cy be caus e i t requi res c oll ection ag encies to cl

earl y dem onstra te that the y and they alone a re the proper part ie s f

or a debtor to be deal

in g with regardi

ng thei r debt. The possibil

ity that debtors mi

ght be sued b

y a party who does not have a l egal in terest in thei

r debt is a real danger (see , e.g. , Randolph v. C

row n Asset Ma nagemen t, LLC , 254 F.R.D. 513 (N.D. I ll . 2008) (c er t ify ing a clas s o f at least 341 po t ent ial plaintiffs in a class ac t ion laws uit aga inst a defend ant wh o atte m pte d to c oll ect de

b ts th at i t al l eg ed l y di d n ot own )), an d th e l eg i sl atu reh as ch ose n to addre ss thi s p rob l em by de man di ng stri ct p roof of an ac cou nt' s cha i n of ti tl e b ef ore a n a cti on may co mmenc e t o co llect o n t hat ac co unt . A s a re su lt , a lt ho ug h t he a ffida vit t hat pla int iff at t ac he d t o t he co mpla int pu r po r t s t o de mo nst r at e t ha t de fen da nt 's a cc o un t ha s be en pr o pe r ly assi gned to plai

ntif f, we construe section 8b to mean that aff ida vi ts such as this cann

ot be used b y a c oll ec ti on

ag en cy to prov e th

e a ss i gn men t an d s tate a c l ai m to a d eb tor' s a cc oun t.No. 1-10- 0855

13

We next examine o ne o f the co nt ra ct s o f assignment t hat ar e at t ache d t o p laintiff's
co mplaint, along wit h its inco rp or at ed d oc ument s. T he co nt ra ct of a ssignment bet wee n t he origi nal creditor, Citib ank, and the f irst assi gnee, Uni fun d Port fol io A, states i

n rel evan t part as foll ows: “For value r ece ived and subjec t t o t he t er ms and c ond itio ns o f the Pu rc hase and S ale Agr eement dat ed O ct obe r 3 , 2 006 , be t wee n Buyer and t he Ba n k ( th e ‘ A gr eemen

t’) , the B an

k does h ereb y ** * a ss i gn

** * to B uy

er , a n d to Bu yer ' s s uc ce ss orsan

d a ss i gns, good

an d m ar ketab l e ti tl e to th e A cc oun ts descri bed i n Section 1.2 of

the Agreem

ent, free an

d cl ear of al

l e ncum brance s ***.” A s we m en ti on ed ab ov e, se cti

on 8b re qui re s th at a con tra ct of as si gn men t con tai n th re e e l em en ts in or der t o be valid: t he da t e o f assignment , t he co nsider at ion p aid, and t he ident ify ing informat ion fo r t he ac co unt . H er e, t he effect ive dat e is st at ed o n t he face of t he co nt ra ct and there do not app ear to be

an y conf l i cti ng d ates. C f. Webster , 29 8 I l l . A

pp . 3d at 2 59 . In

con tra st, the consi derati on p ai d a nd the ac cou nt i nf orm ati on d o not a ppe ar on the f ac e of the con tract of
ass i gnm en t, but are i nstead ap paren tly i n the i nc orporated pu

rchase and sa l e agre em en t. As we h eld ab ove, i

nc orporati on by

ref eren ce is ac ceptabl e un

der s ection 8b . Howev

er, the pur ch as e a nd sa l e agre em en t i s n ot atta ch ed to the com pl ai nt a l ong wi th th e c ontr ac t of assi gnm ent. Wi thout this documen t, we are unable to det ermi ne wh ic h accounts ha

ve b een
ass i gne d by

Ci tib an k to Uni f und Portfol i o A, n or can we de term i ne what cons i derati

on wa s pa i d. Plai nti f f has i nc l ude d th ree page s th at, a cc ordi ng to the Ca rnesaf f i da vi t, are re da cte d por

ti ons ofNo. 1-10- 0855

14

the pur ch as e a nd sa l e agre em en t. How ever, the se

page s e ac h c onta

i n on l y a s i ngl e l i ne of in form ation an d are otherwise b la

nk. One page

in cl udes def endan t's nam e and som

e addi tional in form ation, whi le hi s purport ed account num ber i s on a compl

etely separate page. The pages
are n ei ther n um bered n or dated, n

or do they

ha ve an y other m arki ngs that i ndi cate they are pa rt of the purc

ha se a nd s ale agre em

en t that the c ontract of

ass i gnm en t ref ers to. Moreov

er, the re does n ot appear to be an y term that state s the

cons i derati

on pa i d. The record is s il

ent as to whether plai

ntif f m ay have fi le d a copy of thi

s particul ar docum en t wi th the ci rcui t court, al though i t does ap pear th at som e docum en ts that ar e in corpo rated into ot her contracts of assi gnm ent were fi

le d under seal

in unredacted form . Based on t he r eco rd befo re us, how ever , it do es no t app ear t hat t he as signment of d efenda nt 's ac co unt f rom Ci ti b an k to U n i f un d P ortf oli o A sa ti sf i es se cti on 8b b ec au se i t doe s n ot s pe ci f i ca l l y sta te the c onsi derati on an d the acc ount. It is, of course, for the ci

rcuit court t o determin

e whether al

l of the documen

ts that pla in tif f h as attached to its complai nt in this case sati sf

y the requirem ents of section 8b, and we
ma ke no fi ndi ngs one way

or t he other on the subj ect. We reiterate, however, that section 8b
re quir es e ach c ont ra ct of a ssignment in the c hain of t itle fo r t he ac co unt , be ginning wit h t he ori gi n al cred i tor a n d en di n g w i th th e p l ai n ti f f , to spe ci f i ca l l y sta te a n d i n cl ude th e e f f ecti v e date of a ssignment , t he co nsider at ion p aid, and t he ident ify ing informat ion fo r t he ac co unt transferred. In view of t he abo ve disc uss ion, we a nswe r t he first cer t ifi ed q ues t ion in t he affirmat ive with quali fi cations. We hold that, under section 8b of the Collection Agency Act (225 I LCSNo. 1-10- 0855

15

425 /8b (Wes t 200 8)) , a c ol l ec ti on a ge nc y ca n e sta bl i sh an as si gn men t of ac cou nts rec ei va bl e f or
co llectio n pur po ses t hro ugh d oc ument s at t ache d as exhibits t o t he plaint iff 's co mplaint w her e t he ident ifi cat ion o f the acc ou nt s t ra nsferr ed, t he co nsider at ion p aid, and t he effect ive dat e o f the transfer of

particular accounts are in mul tiple i ncorporat ed documen

ts. However, such do cument s must be in the for m of co nt ra ct s o f assignment or do cument s t hat ar e inco rp or at ed by
re f eren ce i n to those con tra cts , ra th er th an i n th e f orm of an af f i da v i t. III. CONCLUSION A s ex pl ai n ed ab ov e, we

an swer th e f i rs t ce rtif i ed qu esti on i n th e af f i rm ati v e wi th qual i f i cations, a nd th e se cond certif i ed questi on i n the af f i rm ati ve . Certif ie d questions a

nswered; cause rem

anded.