Opinion ID: 3164919
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The ICAA bars all of Dello Russo’s claims.

Text: The ICAA states that a “debtor may not maintain an action on or in any way related to a credit agreement unless the credit agreement is in writing . . . and is signed by the creditor and the debtor.”5 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 160/2. This prohibition is broad and bars all actions, whether sounding in tort or contract, “which depend for their existence upon an oral credit agreement.” See First Nat. Bank in Staunton v. McBride Chevrolet, Inc., 642 N.E.2d 138, 141–42 (1994). As relevant here, “a debtor cannot assert a claim, counterclaim, or defense based on an agreement by a creditor to modify or amend an existing credit agreement unless the creditor and debtor have signed a writing setting forth the relevant terms of the modification.” Dello Russo I, 610 F. App’x at 853 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 160/2, 160/3) (citing Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am. v. LaSalle Nat’l Bank, 691 N.E.2d 881, 888 (1998)). Dello Russo’s claims are based on an agreement to modify an existing credit agreement—the Guaranty. In Dello Russo I, we held that the Guaranty is a credit agreement under Illinois law, see id., and as noted above, the claims arise from 5 A credit agreement is “an agreement or commitment by a creditor to lend money or extend credit or delay or forbear repayment of money not primarily for personal, family or household purposes, and not in connection with the issuance of credit cards.” 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 160/1. 7 Case: 15-13300 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 8 of 8 Dello Russo and Fifth Third’s agreement to modify the Guaranty. Furthermore, given the broad scope of Section 160/2 of the ICAA, all of Dello Russo’s claims, including the unjust enrichment claim, fall within the reach of the Section. See LaSalle Nat’l Bank, 691 N.E.2d at 884–85, 888 (holding that the ICAA barred a defendant’s fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and estoppel counterclaims, which arose from the defendant’s allegation that the plaintiff made false oral promises to restructure a loan). Accordingly, as the district court properly found, the claims are barred by the ICCA. AFFIRMED. 8