Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > Guinn v. Hoskins Chevrolet

Guinn v. Hoskins Chevrolet

Case Date: 09/19/2005
Court: 1st District Appellate
Docket No: 1-04-2180 Rel

FIRST DIVISION
September 19, 2005



No. 1-04-2180

DEBORAH GUINN,

                                Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                                   v.

HOSKINS CHEVROLET, UNION FIDELITY LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, and BANK ONE, N.A.,

                                Defendants-Appellees.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)		 Appeal from the
Circuit Court of
Cook County.




Honorable
Allen S. Goldberg,
Judge Presiding.


JUSTICE BURKE delivered the opinion of the court:


Plaintiff Deborah Guinn appeals from an order of the circuit court granting defendants Hoskins Chevrolet, Union Fidelity Life Insurance Company (Union), and Bank One, N.A.'s (Bank One) motions to dismiss Guinn's second amended complaint.(1) On appeal, Deborah contends that the trial court erred in dismissing her second amended complaint because she sufficiently alleged causes of action for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2002)), breach of contract, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On October 8, 1996, plaintiffs purchased a used 1991 Ford truck from Hoskins Chevrolet. Plaintiffs entered into a retail installment contract with Hoskins Chevrolet, which was subsequently assigned to the First National Bank of Chicago, the predecessor of Bank One, now known as JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. The retail installment contract provided for a 36-month loan with an APR of 15% and monthly installment payments of $209.03. Plaintiffs were to make their monthly payments to First National Bank of Chicago, commencing on November 22, 1996. Eddie also elected to purchase credit life insurance for $106.10, which was to be provided by Union.

On January 19, 2001, Deborah filed the first of three complaints in this case. This 18-page, 142 paragraph complaint against defendants, alleged claims for consumer fraud, common law fraud, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The claims were based on four alleged "violations" of either the federal Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) (15 U.S.C.