Representation for Condominium Boards and Managers

Are you experiencing problems with ever increasing condo or townhome assessments? Seeing “special assessments” or sudden additional line items on your assessment? Does your board never have a detailed response for these increases? Does your board operate without the required open-meeting votes? Does the board fail to call meetings to discuss the status of the association? For these and other issues get the answers you are seeking by contacting our staff of experienced attorneys. Call us at 708-974-0000 for answers. Or email us at info@myillinoisatty.com.

Paying Too Much in Real Estate Taxes?

Do you or someone you know own a commercial or industrial property? Tired of the constant inflated property tax bill or a bill that never stops going up? Contact us to see if a tax appeal might successfully lower your tax and counteract future increases. You have rights. Find out what they are before you overspend on your property tax bill and waste your hard earned dollars.  For these and other issues get the answers you are seeking by contacting our staff of experienced attorneys. Call us at 708-974-0000 for answers. Or email us at info@myillinoisatty.com.

Social Security Disability Appeals

When you can’t work because of a disabling condition, you’re tired. You’re tired of trips to the doctor. You’re tired of endless paperwork from insurance. And you’re tired of the daily toll your disability takes on your day-to-day life. It’s hard to find the energy to get the disability benefits that you need to survive. Let our staff and attorneys be your guide and assist you in the difficult process to secure the disability benefits that you may be entitled to. Social Security disability claims can be a daunting and confusing process but we can assist you in that process. For more information call us at 773-467-0400 for a free consultation with one of our attorneys.

Property Tax Appeals in Illinois – Cook County, DuPage County, Will County

Has your home gone down in value? Are you “under water” in comparison with your mortgage? Is your tax bill just as high, or higher than it was before the market crashed? With property taxes still considerably higher than real world home values it’s time for a tax appeal. Get the professional help you need in order to lower that exorbitant tax bill. Lower your bills and keep that money in your pocket. Tax appeals for Cook County, DuPage County and Will County. Our fee is only paid once we lower your tax bill.  For information contact us at info@myillinoisatty.com or call at (708) 974-0000 for a free consultation. Convenient office locations all over the Chicagoland area.

Worker’s Compensation

Have you, a loved one or a friend been injured on the job? A workplace injury is one of the most stressful times in a person’s life. Who will pay for the medical bills? What about my lost wages? What if you are permanently injured? Is there a right to compensation? How much?  Worker’s Compensation can be both daunting and complex. The attorneys at the firm of Wator & Zac, LLC will provide you the knowledge and experience necessary to make sure you are given the maximum compensation provided under the law. For information contact us at here via messenger or call at 708-974-0000 for a free consultation. Convenient office locations all over the Chicagoland area.

#workrelatedinjury

#workerscompensationattorney

Case Law Update – Aggravated DUI

Is a defendant guilty of aggravated DUI where an accident occurs and any amount of drugs or alcohol are in the driver’s system? Can another intervening cause be used as a defense against the assertion that it was the consumption of alcohol or drugs that was the direct cause of the accident and thus requires a guilty finding? In People v. Way 2015 IL App (5th), the Appellate Court explored the assertion that the statute provides for a strict liability interpretation. The defendant was find guilty, after a bench trial, of aggravated driving under the influence. The facts of the case relevant to the decision were that the defendant was involved in a two-car accident wherein her fourteen years old son, a passenger in her vehicle, was seriously injured as a result of the accident. She was charged with the aggravated driving under the influence with the State presenting evidence alleging that she had consumed alcohol and had smoked marijuana on the day of the accident. After a bench trail, following numerous motions, the Court found the defendant guilty asserting that the Illinois Vehicle Code § 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(6) is a strict liability statute where the proximate cause of injuries is not relevant. During the course of motions before the trial, the defendant’s attorney attempted to present evidence of possible alternative causes of the accident based on the defendant’s medical condition at the time of the accident. The court ruled that this evidence of the alternative proximate cause of the accident was disqualified. The defendant appealed the guilty verdict. The Appellate Court determined that the defendant should have been allowed to present her medical evidence, as to an alternative approximate cost of the accident and the injuries, allowing her to put on a proper defense as to the charge of the aggravated driving under the influence. The Appellate Court refused to interpret the statute as if the general assembly had intended for the particular paragraph of the statue to be read as a strict liability standard – where no alternative proximate causes of the related accident were allowed to be introduced at trial to determine guilt for the DUI charge. The Appellate Court found that the language in the statute stating “when the violation was the proximate cost of the injuries” made it fairly clear that it was the intent of legislators to provide for a causal connection to be proven at the time of the trial. On the other hand this same language would allow for the defendant to provide evidence of alternative causes of the accident as a defense – such as a medical problem as in this case.

Bankruptcy

Credit card debt piling up? Medical bills unpaid? Collection agents calling non-stop? Losing your home or your car because of unpaid payments? Save what you can!!! Get the relief you need!!! Call us to see how we can help you get a new start and get the relief you need from the weight of all of these bills. Call 773-467-0400 for a free consultation with an attorney in our firm.

DUI – Breathalyzer Below .08

Can a person be charged with DUI even if his blood alcohol content is below .059 and thus below the legal limit, but on the contention of the police officer that the defendant had shown evidence of intoxication and impairment. In People v. Phillips, the 1st District Appellate Court here in Illinois was tasked with making this determination. The defendant was charged with driving under the influence pursuant to 625 ILCS 5/11-501 (a)(2) which is a charge of driving while under the influence, but this particular paragraph makes no statement as to the blood alcohol concentration. Instead (a)(2) relies on the assertion that the driver was driving in an impaired condition based on a totality of the evidence at the time of the traffic stop. Upon being found guilty by the trial court, the defendant appealed. One of the issues on appeal was the contention that the State failed to meet its burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the argument that since he did not blow .08 there is a presumption of a lack of impairment. Therefore, the defendant contended that if he did not blow .08 then the statute stated that the court needed to start from a presumption that he was not impaired and thus could not be charged. The appellate court ruled on the contrary stating that although under the Illinois vehicle code someone who is stopped for suspected DUI, and is given a breath test, and blows less than .08, but more than .05 the statute makes no presumption of impairment, but neither does it infer a lack of impairment. The court ruling basically confirms what has been the state of affairs related to this particular form of DUI charge – that when someone’s BAC, based on a breathalyzer test, is below .08 it is the totality of circumstances, the total facts of the case, that will control in the ultimate court’s decision. Therefore, the testimony of any witnesses, the arresting officer, any other officers, and anyone else as to the facts and circumstances of the DUI stop. This may include the appearance of the defendant, whether there was a smell of an alcoholic beverage on the person, whether they were able to go through the field sobriety tests sufficiently well, and any other facts and circumstances allowing the court or the jury to make an informed decision on whether or not the defendant was guilty. In this case it was the smell of an alcoholic beverage on defendant, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, general disorientation and lack of awareness of his surroundings, and finally difficulty with the field sobriety tests which were sufficient for a finding of guilty.

Collection Defense – Be Careful Where You Keep Your Money

Citation to Discover Assets  |  1st Dist.

Gataric v. Colak, 2016 IL App (1st) 151281 (July 15, 2016) Cook Co., 5th Div. (REYES) Affirmed.
Court entered order denying Citation Respondent’s claim to funds held in joint checking account with Defendant, and ordering those funds be turned over to Plaintiff in satisfaction of underlying judgment obtained by Plaintiff against Defendant. At trial of supplementary proceeding, court used proper standard when analyzing whether Respondent met her burden of proof. Court conducted evidentiary hearing and heard testimony from Respondent and her husband. Lack of factual findings in court’s written order does not mean court must be reversed. (LAMPKIN and BURKE, concurring.)

 

Moral of the story is be careful where you keep your money and how the joint account is maintained. The Defendant held money with another person in a joint account. The creditor/Plaintiff filed a citation and went after the joint account. At a special hearing on the matter the Defendant was unable to provide sufficient evidence supporting the notion that the funds were owned by the other party. And the money went to the creditor/Plaintiff