Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > Rapier v. First Bank and Trust Co.

Rapier v. First Bank and Trust Co.

Case Date: 11/16/1999
Court: 1st District Appellate
Docket No: 1-98-3191

Rapier v. First Bank and Trust Co., No. 1-98-3191

1st District, November 16, 1999

SECOND DIVISION

JAMES R. RAPIER, JR., and BONNIE L. RAPIER,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

FIRST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, f/k/a First Bank and Trust Company of Palatine,

Defendant

and

(Trans Union Credit Information Company, a foreign corporation,

Defendant-Appellee).

 Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County

Honorable Willard Lassers, Judge Presiding

JUSTICE McNULTY delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiffs, James R. Rapier, Jr., and Bonnie L. Rapier, appeal from an order of the trial court granting the motion of Trans Union Corporation (Trans Union) to quash service of process and vacate a default judgment entered against Trans Union Credit Information Company (Trans Union Credit) in May 1992. Plaintiffs also appeal from an order of the trial court denying their motion to reconsider. We affirm.

On December 18, 1987, plaintiffs filed an action for breach of contract and defamation in which they alleged that First Bank and Trust Company of Illinois (First Bank) filed an erroneous foreclosure lawsuit against them, and Trans Union Credit generated credit reports on them which reflected that the foreclosure lawsuit was pending, even though First Bank had voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit and had requested that Trans Union Credit correct its records to show that the lawsuit was improper. Plaintiffs caused a summons to be served upon United States Corporation Company (USCC), as registered agent for Trans Union Credit. Trans Union Credit, by its attorneys, Keck, Mahin & Cate, filed an appearance and an answer to the complaint in which it denied that First Bank had requested that it correct its records to reflect that the lawsuit was improper. In addition, Trans Union Credit asserted that it acted in a reasonable manner in publishing the information and plaintiffs' lawsuit was preempted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C.