Allen v. Linn

Ring represented a townhome tenant for his return of his security deposit, and penalties. After the trial court Judge ruled that the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance did not apply, Ring successfully persuaded the Illinois Appellate Court that the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance applied to townhouse tenants, even though the owner lived in the same 6 unit building.

Digital Network v. Gregory Laka & Company

Ring successfully defended Digital on claims for fraud and consumer fraud when Digital took over 6 months to install Laka’s phone system, failed to honor the warranty and failed to transfer the computer operating system and software in setting up an entire system to accommodate 2 cities, where Laka operated. After a one week jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in Laka’s favor on their breach of contract claims for $113,000 after Laka presented 3 expert witnesses concerning their lost income exceeding 2 million dollars. Ring successfully cross examined Laka’s CPA on corporate income issues, a nationally reknown software computer expert, and a telephone systems expert. Ring’s client, Digital, did not offer any expert testimony.

Haschke v. Tim Hill

Ring successfully detained a verdict after a jury trial that the landlord’s sporadic occupation of the basement in a 2 flat did not exempt the landlord from the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance where the ordinance exempts owner-occupied buildings.

Schmidt v. Gramrossa

Ring settled a tenant’s claim for the full return of their security deposit plus the payment of substantially all his attorney fees, when his clients left with 4 months remaining on the lease and Ring presented large amounts of public and private records which demonstrated the landlords lived elsewhere, to defeat the owners claim that they occupied the building in their effort to exempt them from the ordinance.

Avila v. United Investors, Inc.

Ring represented Tenant Avila whom was behind in paying his rent to landlord United for an apartment in Chicago. United filed an eviction suit and sought about 1.5 years of back rent from Avila, who paid his rent on a sporadic basis. While the eviction case was pending and before the Cook County Sheriff had served Avila with the complaint and summons, the landlord’s agents went to Avila’s apartment, told him “Get the ---- out of here” and then grabbed the tenant’s keys off his dresser. Avila left and was homeless for the next 67 days until Ring sought an injunction against the landlord to allow him back into the apartment. Avila claimed emotional distress but no lost or damaged property. Landlord denied its agents appeared or took the keys and contended that Avila could have come back if he wanted and gotten a duplicate key from management. After an 3 day jury trial the jury awarded $85,441 to Ring’s client for the wrongful eviction. The Landlord settled shortly after the denial of post-trial motions and also paid substantially over and above the verdict amounts plus Ring’s attorney fees.

Tamara Watson Small, Karel Hula v. Thomas Viere, Estate of Mary Viere, deceased

Mary Viere signed a contract to purchase the Duneland Beach Inn and Hunter Restaurant in Michigan City, Indiana. The contract was negotiated by her husband, defendant Thomas Viere. The transaction closed with a provision for a second mortgage in the amount of $90,000 to Ring’s clients, Karel Hula and Tamara Watson Small. Since August 1995, plaintiff Hula had prepared financial statements for the operation of the inn and restaurant showing net profits ranging from $14,000 to $56,000. After closing the sale, the plaintiffs filed a corporate tax return showing a net profit of $6,500. Plaintiffs did their own accounting and prepared their own tax returns. Ring’s client filed suit to collect on the promissory note. Defendant counterclaimed seeking damages for fraud in the inducement, claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act (ICFDPA), and claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and sought punitive damages. The court dismissed the ICFDPA and RICO claims and entered a directed verdict for Small on the punitive damages. Plaintiffs contended that the operating statements were not materially different and that defendants did not rely on false statements. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Ring’s clients on all counts on the counterclaim and awarded them 100% of the amount due under the note. The defendants agreed to pay Ring’s attorney fees in addition to the verdict awarded by the jury, which was provided for under the terms of the note.

Towne Brothers Realty & Construction v. Female Health Associates, Dr. Phillip Higgins

Ring’s client the landlord won a jury trial to evict the OB GYN’s medical office even though the tenant was billed the incorrect amount for C.A.M., base rent increases and tax escalations for over 2-1/2 years. The tax and expense reconciliations for 1996 and 1997 were not billed until September 1998-- and the rent increases went unbilled until May 1999. The tenants asserted that the rent increases and expense reconciliations were waived by their late billing. The jury disagreed and Ring won the eviction for his landlord client.

Watson v. Merrill Street Cooperative

Ring won an injunction against the Cooperative for the improper lockout of the premises and the court restored her back into possession.

Pike v. Beal

Ring represented a class of tenants at the 1220 North LaSalle Building, Chicago and secured $27,000 from the landlord due to the elevators being out for 3 weeks. The landlords also paid Ring; Attorney fees of $44,000 separately.

King v. Devon

Ring represented a tenant whose $450 security deposit was not returned by the landlord. The landlord countersued for $20,000 for damages by the tenant. The landlord threatened to take the sole source of income away from the tenant. After a 2 day trial, the court awarded the tenant over $4,000, no money on the landlord’s counterclaims and substantial fees to Ring.

Frietes v. Alvarado

After the landlord pursued the eviction with the Sheriff’s Office while Ring’s client, the tenant filed a motion to vacate, the tenant was evicted. The court ruled the eviction was unlawful and awarded damages for his lost property, distress and attorney fees.

Imes v. Tandem

Tandem sued Imes, Ring’s client on a forged mortgage, which Tandem claimed Imes signed for remodeling. The court disagreed with Tandem and ordered the mortgage removed. Ring knocked out the handwriting expert by Tandem.

Ranalli's v. Chicago Park District

Ring represented Ranalli’s Pizza against the Chicago Park District where the Park District wrongfully revoked Ranalli’s licenses to sell pizza and beer in the Theater of the Lake concessions. The court awarded Ranalli’s damages for lost property and lost profits against the Park District and Ring’s attorney fees.

In Re: Estate of Byrd

Ring negotiated a favorable settlement for his client in which there was a dispute concerning whether an heir was really the daughter of the decedent. Ring successfully cross-examined a leading DNA Expert.

Bernick v. Thursh

Ring successfully negotiated a settlement where his client the Builder only returned the previously obtained liquidated penalty monies to the townhouse purchaser claimed the Builder defrauded them by using used parts and supplies from other home sites and other interior windows. The townhouse purchaser and attorney agreed to pay all this, our costs and fees and release all other claims.

Luis v. Carlson, RPB

Ring negotiated settlements against attorney and the seller of a pizza restaurant, where the lawyer failed to adequately protect Ring’s client in his representation during their purchase of the pizza business. Also the seller paid monies to Ring’s client the buyer due to the purported falsification of income figures in the Pizza business.

Bator v. Tom & George Enterprises

Ring secured a favorable settlements for his business purchaser fast food against client , the real estate brokers and the seller of the business due to fraud in the listing of the daily sales of the business. The defendants agreed to return all of Ring’s clients their investments and paid legal fees.

Hamm v. 7201 S. Yates

Ring secured a verdict after trial for the return of the tenant’s security deposit return against the condominium converters who acquired the building months later after the tenant moved out.

Jukic v. Zipperstein - Wolf Inc.

Ring represented plaintiff apartment building purchasers in Rogers Park. The sellers neglected to disclose to them a pending building violation fast track inspection. After closing on this “as is” purchase, the purchasers were forced to spend additional monies to remedy the building violations. The sellers agreed to reimburse the purchasers substantial monies even though Ring’s clients resold the building for a profit prior to the settlement.

Mark and Bozena Andrzejewski v. Goin Realty, and Greenwich Investors XVI, LLC

Case no. 2006 L 5367
Plaintiffs Bozena and Mark Andrzejewski owned the single family dwelling located at 1531 N. Haven in Palatine. After not paying their mortgage for approximately 2 years, the bank foreclosed on their home. Greenwich Investors XVI LLC purchased the property at the Sheriff’s sale in July, 2005. They obtained an order of possession on July 11, 2005, against the Andrzejewskis which was stayed until August 12, 2005. The Andrzejewskis then negotiated a rental of $2,500 a month with Greenwich’s real estate agent, Goin Realty, Inc and paid them $5,000 by a cashier’s check on August 18, 2005. A few days before receiving that check, Agents of Goin Realty gave the Sheriff’s office authority and paid them monies to evict the Andrzejewskis. After receiving the $5,000 check and cashing the check, on September 13, 2005, the sheriff came and evicted the Andrzejewskis and removed all their personal possessions from the house. The Andrzejewskis did not have any receipts for their personal property taken or removed by the Sheriff’s office. The case settled 2 days prior to trial for $138,000.00. Judge William Haddad presided over the settlement conference.

John Meeks v. Cit/Consumer Finance Inc. Kimberly Weissman and Paul Booth

Case no. 2005 L 141100
Plaintiff Meeks owned two properties 4200 and 4202 S. Ellis in Chicago. They were both separate properties on separate lots with separate legal descriptions and separate Property Index numbers, separate deeds and separate mortgages. On July 24, 2002, the CIT Group/Consumer Finance, Inc.,("CIT"), filed a Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage against John Meeks styled The CIT Group/Consumer Finance, Inc. v. John O.Meeks, et al. and bearing the case number 02 CH 13557 and Defendant Kimberly Weissman was the attorney of record for CIT in that case. Ms. Weissman filed that complaint with Paragraph 31.(2) of the Complaint listing the common address of the mortgaged premises as 4200-4202 S. Ellis Street, Chicago, Illinois 60653. However the Mortgage attached to the Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage as Exhibit A, lists the street address of the mortgaged premises as 4202 S. Ellis St, Chicago, and the he property address on the Adjustable Rate Promissory Note attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage is 4202 S. Ellis St, Chicago, IL 60653.

The property used to secure the loan on which CIT sought to foreclose its interest in case number 02 CH 13557 was only the property located at 4202 S. Ellis, Chicago, Illinois 60653. The property located at 4200 S. Ellis, Chicago, Illinois had not been used to secure the mortgage on which CIT sought to foreclose.

On December 2, 2002, a judgment of foreclosure and sale was granted to Plaintiff and against all Defendants in that case Defendant Weissman prepared the Judgment of Foreclosure Order on September 15, 2003, an Order Approving Report of Sale and Distribution, Confirming Sale and Order of Possession was entered. The September 15, 2003 Order of Possession states that "the Sheriff of Cook County is directed to evict and dispossess JOHN O. MEEKS, JR. A/K/A JEWELL MUHAMMAD. . . from the premises commonly known as 4200-02 SOUTH ELLIS STREET, CHICAGO, IL 60653." Weissman prepare that order of September 15, 2003

On October 3, 2003, Meeks appeared in case no. 02 CH 13557 ex parte, and the Court vacated the September 15, 2003, an Order of Possession as well as all previous judgments and orders entered against Meeks.

On October 9, 2003, Defendant Weissman drafted and entered an order that states in relevant part: "The October 3, 2003 order is vacated." The judgment against John Meeks is reentered, the sale of the home at 4202 S. Ellis is confirmed as the 9/15/03 order stands."

On December 17, 2003, the Sheriff of Cook County forcibly removed John Meeks from both 4202 and 4200 South Ellis, Chicago, Illinois, and removed his personal property from both residences. Defendant Paul Booth was a sales associate, whom CIT hired, retained or otherwise engaged Booth, through Re/Max, to assist CIT in listing or otherwise facilitating the sale of 4202 S. Ellis, Chicago, IL. The Plaintiff lost some personal property from the residence and was homeless for a few days. However on his bankruptcy papers he did not list any of the lost or stolen property on any of his asset schedules. The Plaintiff did not have any receipts for the property claimed taken. The case settled for $18,000 during trial before the Honorable Bill Taylor.