FIRST DISTRICT
JANUARY 22, 2002
DEBORAH CHARLES, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BLUE Defendants-Appellees. | ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) | Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County No. 95 M3 4210 |
This matter comes before the court for the second time on appeal to determine (1)whether the trial court properly denied plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint; and (2)whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We willnote from the outset that we have another appeal pending in a related case. (No. 1-00-1161.) Thecases were not consolidated, however, our decision here will affect the other case. As this courtis very familiar with the history of this litigation, we will give a brief recitation of the facts fromour 1997 order. (App. Order 1-97-0805, December 16, 1997.)
BACKGROUND
On October 11, 1991, the named-plaintiff in this class action, Deborah Charles, purchaseda 1991 Saab 900 from defendant David Glen, Inc. d/b/a Downtown Motors. Plaintiff executed astandard form "RETAIL INSTALLMENT CONTRACT" created by Toyota Motor Corporationto finance $32,887.80 of the car's price.
The contract states that the number of monthly payments is 59 at an annual percentagerate of 12.75%. The contract further states the "FINANCE CHARGE" ("The dollar amount thecredit will cost you") is $11,991.60, the "Amount Financed" ("The amount of credit provided toyou on your behalf") is $32,887.80, the "Total of Payments" ("The amount you will have paidafter you have made all payments as scheduled") is $44,879.40, and the "Total Sale Price" ("Thetotal cost of your purchase on credit, including your down payment of $6,493.00") is $51,372.40.
The plaintiff filed a class action in the circuit court of Cook County. The SecondAmended Complaint alleged that at a 12.75% APR, the "Amount Financed" should be$11,757.98, not $11,991.60 as stated in the contract. Moreover, the "Total of Payments" shouldbe $44,646, not $44,897.40 as stated in the contract. The plaintiff's Second Amended Complaintpurported to state claims against the defendants for violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act(15 U.S.C.