Practice News

In the latest Trusts and Estates newsletter, Mary Cascino flags an unintended and unwelcome byproduct of the new POA Act, which took effect July 1, and proposes some language to remedy the problem. The new Act "revises the statutory form in Section 3.3(c)...to state in paragraph 1 of the form: 'I...hereby revoke all prior powers of attorney...,'" Cascino writes. The problem? That language can be read to revoke not only prior statutory POAs but also routine limited agencies, including "special or limited powers of attorney such as those on file at a bank, investment house or corporation records." Not good. She recommends that lawyers avoid trouble by adding the word "statutory" to the new statutory form so it reads thusly: "I...hereby revoke all prior statutory powers of attorney...." Cascino notes that HB 1712, passed by the General Assembly but not yet signed by the governor, is designed to cure the problem by "identifying powers of attorney that would be excluded from such revocation...." But it won't take effect until January 1, 2012, assuming Governor Quinn signs it as expected. Her proposed fix would cover the gap between 7/1/11 and 1/1/12.

By Michael T. Reagan, The Law Offices of Michael T. Reagan In Wirtz v. Quinn, Justice Burke wrote for a unanimous court in reversing the appellate court’s Opinion which had declared the 2009 Capital Projects Acts unconstitutional. This Opinion will serve as a modern Baedeker for the law of legislative drafting. This action, brought by Rockwell Wirtz and Wirtz Beverage Illinois, LLC, on behalf of taxpayers generally, was initiated by a complaint seeking to enjoin the disbursement of public funds pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/11-303. The statute requires that the action be commenced by filing a petition for leave to file, and requires that the circuit court find reasonable ground for filing before the complaint may be filed. The circuit court concluded that reasonable ground did not exist, and denied the petition. The appellate court found that PA 96-34 "An Act Concerning Revenue" violated Article IV, § 8(d) of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, the single subject clause. The remaining three acts, consisting of an Appropriation Bill, a Trailer Bill and a Budget Implementation Bill, each expressly provided that it was passed contingent upon PA 96-34 becoming law. Because the appellate court found that PA 96-34 was void in its entirety, the remaining three bills were found to fall as well because of that contingency. The appellate court did not then have occasion to take up any of the other constitutional challenges to the bills. The supreme court granted the Petition for Leave to Appeal filed by the numerous governmental defendants and handled the case in a compressed timeframe. The supreme court reversed the appellate court’s holding that PA 96-34 violated the single subject clause. Then, in the interest of judicial economy, and perhaps in recognition of the practical fiscal importance of this dispute, the court addressed all of the other constitutional challenges pled in the taxpayers’ complaint, rather than remanding the case to the appellate court.

ISBA's Director of Legislative Affairs Jim Covington reports from Springfield on seven new public acts that Gov. Quinn has signed. New laws affect worker's compensation, transfers on death, court's witness, students, juvenile justice, FOIA and insurance law.

It's a question that will come up more and more often. "In 2009, the average cost of a wedding was in excess of $30,000," writes Kelley Manzano in the latest ISBA Family Law newsletter. The average. When it comes to planning expenses alone, we're not talking chump change. Kelley reminds us that plaintiffs in two pending Cook County Circuit Court cases are seeking damages in the tens of thousands for costs associated with broken engagements. She looks at the case law, the Breach of Promise Act, and some interesting theories of recovery in her fascinating article.