Those who have been improperly classified as independent contractors may bring a lawsuit against their employer for compensation of the benefits and protection they would have obtained if classified as employees. Contact our attorneys at Loberg Stevens LLC to schedule a consultation.

All too often, condominium disputes in Chicago have been solved by a simple equation: fine the unit owner, assess the fines, and send the case to collections when the unit owner refuses to pay.  This decision tree normally results in increased legal expenses for the association and a disrupted relationship between the board and the unit owner.

Mediation may be very useful in these cases to get to the bottom of the disagreement and encourage negotiation before the board and unit owners reach an impasse.  Many times, we see personal conflicts masked as board and unit owner conflicts.  Even more frequently, the solution to a condominium dispute is much simpler than it may seem.  Boards can garner a lot of respect and goodwill from unit owners, as well as a healthy base of collectable assessments, by making an effort to work out a dispute before things require an extensive legal solution.

Many unit owners in Chicago rent their units as investment properties, but this is quite different.  Generally, a condo unit owner cannot use a condominium unit for prohibited business purposes.  However, not all business purposes are prohibited, depending on the terms of the declaration and local zoning ordinances.

Chicago condominium associations have been forced more and more recently to commence condominium lawsuits against unit owners as many associations face uncertain times in the changed economy.

Businesses often regulate their employer-employee relationships with employment contracts that contain noncompete and nondisclosure agreements. Additionally, many businesses set their contracts for a length of time in which the employee is employed exclusively.

Other companies may try to steal away top performers for their books of business or expertise. Companies should be sure to act quickly to enforce the rights under their contracts with the employee.

The employment contract, though, is not the only source of recovery. Illinois law provides that a corporation may sue when another person or entity interferes with its contracts, business relationships, or business expectancies. This means that companies have rights to enforce and justice to seek in an tortious interference with contract lawsuit.

Companies who sue under these laws can seek their actual damages, the amount of money they lost as a result of the other company’s interference with the contract, as well as punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

The most common type of tortious interference with contract lawsuit is the standard case of one company having an employment contract with someone which another company pays or entices the employee to break.

Companies should also know that the statute of limitations for tortious interference with a contract is slightly different that other tort causes of action. While most personal injury lawsuits in tort have a two year statute of limitations in Illinois, tortious interference with contract lawsuits have a five year statute of limitations. Usually, a Chicago business litigation attorney would recommend commencing evidence recovery and lawsuit investigation as soon as the injury is discovered to protect a business’s rights.

Individual consumers do have rights under the Uniform Commercial Code for breach of warranty. The most common consumer protection lawsuit for a warranty is breach of the implied warranty for fitness of purpose. What this means in basic terms is that an item sold for a particular purpose should be fit and useable for that purpose. When it is not and a consumer is injured or the object doesn’t work, the consumer has a potential for a breach of warranty lawsuit.

In a breach lawsuit based on fitness for a particular purpose, a plaintiff must show information about the product, how it was sold, and what injury occurred. The mostd common type of injury is a products liability injury, when a consumer is injured by a defective or dangerous product.

A Chicago products liability attorney can advise clients on whether or not a Chicago breach of warranty lawsuit or a Chicago products liability lawsuit may be good options for recovery if an individual has been hurt by a dangerous product.

The law provides that consumers may file a consumer protection lawsuit or an unfair debt collection practice lawsuit to enforce their rights.

Consumers who prevail in a lawsuit for unfair debt collection can obtain their actual damages, not to exceed $1,000 as well as their attorneys’ fees and court costs.

In some circumstances, plaintiffs who file a lawsuit against a debt collector can allege actual damages in excess of $1,000 for severe and extreme emotional distress. This can help some plaintiffs obtain justice for debt collector harassment.

Chicago consumer fraud attorneys and unfair debt collection lawsuit attorneys can assist potential clients in reviewing their potential claims against a debt collector.

Under the law, debt collectors are not allowed to harass debtors when they attempt to collect. Specific situations may vary, but the touchstone for improper conduct is that a collector may not engage in any conduct that results in harassment, oppression, or abuse of the debtor. In consumer protection lawsuits, courts have found that staements in collection letters that an investigator would be dispatched to hunt down a debtor is abuse, statements that debtors ignore their bills and lack common sense is also not allowed, as well as threats of violence, profanity, and statements regarding a debtor’s ability to handle family affairs.

Contrary to popular belief, harassment by debt collectors has to go beyond simple phone calls and letters. A debt collector can contact a debtor by phone or by mail provided they follow certain required procedures. However, more than one phone call or letter is not harassment. If a debt collector begins to call too frequently or changes their tone to one that is violent or threatening, then a consumer should be sure to enfoce their own rights.

Chicago consumer fraud attorneys can assist a consumer in considering wiether they have been the victim of unfair debt collection practices and can evaluate any potential for a Chicago consumer fraud lawsuit.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FCPA) protects consumers from unfair debt collection practices by requiring certain limits on debt collection agencies and debt collectors.

The FDCPA requires that a debt collector or debt collection agency identify themselves as a debt collector when contacting the consumer.

Debt collectors are also limited in how they may contact consumers about the debt owed. For instance, debt collectors may not call consumers outside of 8:00am and 9:00pm at the debtor’s local time. Debt collectors cannot send harassing or threatening communications or phone calls to consumers either. Debtors can be called at their places of work as well.

Many collection agencies utilize mail services to contact debtors. It is important to keep a vigilant eye on mail coming through from debt collectors to your home or place of work: debt collectors cannot mark the outside of the envelope indicating that it contains a letter to collect a debt.

If you believe that you have been improperly contacted by a debt collection agency you should consider speaking to a Chicago consumer protection attorney.