ILCS » Chapter 805 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

805 ILCS 5/12.80 (2026)

Survival of remedy after dissolution

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(805 ILCS 5/12.80) (from Ch. 32, par. 12.80)
    Sec. 12.80. Survival of remedy after dissolution. The dissolution of a corporation either (1) by filing articles of dissolution in accordance with Section 12.20 of this Act, (2) by the issuance of a certificate of dissolution in accordance with Section 12.40 of this Act, (3) by a judgment of dissolution by a circuit court of this State, or (4) by expiration of its period of duration, shall not take away nor impair any civil remedy available to or against such corporation, its directors, or shareholders, for any right or claim existing, or any liability accrued or incurred, either prior to, at the time of, or after such dissolution if action or other proceeding thereon is commenced within five years after the date of such dissolution. Any such action or proceeding by or against the corporation may be prosecuted or defended by the corporation in its corporate name. This provision does not extend any applicable statute of limitations.
(Source: P.A. 98-776, eff. 1-1-15.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1995–2024 · leading case: Pielet v. Pielet, 2012 IL 112064 (Ill. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pielet v. Pielet, 2012 IL 112064 (Ill. 2012). · cites it 7× “, was subject to the survival provisions of the Business Corporation Act of 1983 (805 ILCS 5/12.80 (West 2006)) despite the fact that the claim did not accrue until after P.”
Hamilton v. Conley, 827 N.E.2d 949 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 5× “80 of the Business Corporation Act of 1983 (805 ILCS 5/12.80 (West 2002)), also known as the Corporate Survival Statute (Survival Statute), limits to five years the time period after dissolution in which suits may be brought by or against a corporation.”
Peetoom v. Swanson, 778 N.E.2d 291 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 4× “80 of the Business Corporation Act of 1983 (the Act) (805 ILCS 5/12.80 (West 1998)), which imposes a five-year limitation on all actions against dissolved corporations and their shareholders, is the limitations period applicable to this case.”
Pielet v. Pielet, 942 N.E.2d 606 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 4× “80 of the Business Corporation Act of 1983 (805 ILCS 5/12.80 (West 2008)) (the Survival Statute) preserves certain claims against dissolved corporations, that section did not save plaintiffs claim.”
McGinley Partners, LLC v. Royalty Props., LLC, 2018 IL App (1st) 171317 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 6× “Specifically, defendants *1214 *277 claimed that dissolved corporations maintained the right to file a cause of action for five years following the dissolution, pursuant to the survival statute in the Business Corporation Act of 1983 ( 805 ILCS 5/12.80 (West 2004) ).…”
McGinley Partners, LLC v. Royalty Props., LLC, 2018 IL App (1st) 171317 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 6× “Specifically, defendants claimed that dissolved corporations maintained the right to file a cause of action for five years following the dissolution, pursuant to the survival statute in the Business Corporation Act of 1983 (805 ILCS 5/12.80 (West 2004)). Consequently, defendants…”
Riley Acquisitions, Inc. v. Drexler, 946 N.E.2d 957 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 2× “80 of the Business Corporation Act of 1983 (805 ILCS 5/12.80 (West 2002)), which is often called the Survival Statute.”
Citizens Elec. Corp., as Rep. of a Class v. Bituminous Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 68 F.3d 1016 (7th Cir. 1995). · cites it 2× “State law permits suit to be commenced within five years of the dissolution, 805 ILCS 5/12.80, and on March 28, 1991, with three days to go, a class of firms conducting the PCB-removal operation at Cape Girardeau filed this suit seeking to compel Giles Armature and its seven…”
Henderson-Smith & Assocs., Inc. v. Nahamani Fam. Serv. Ctr., Inc., 752 N.E.2d 33 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). “” 805 ILCS 5/12.80 (West 1998). While both of these exceptions are relevant to this discussion, neither directly applies to Henderson-Smith’s suit against Nahamani.”
Riley Acquisitions, Inc. v. Drexler, 946 N.E.2d 957 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 2× “Although there was no evidence that Custom Frame had ever been formally released from the note by Devon, Brown's testimony about Custom Frame's dissolution was never contradicted or impeached in any way. The question consequently becomes whether Custom Frame's dissolution…”
A Plus Janitorial Co. v. Grp. Fox, Inc., 2013 IL App (1st) 120245 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 3× “80 of the Business Corporation Act of 1983 (805 ILCS 5/12.80 (West 2010)). Pielet I, 407 Ill.”
Miner v. Fashion Enter., Inc., 794 N.E.2d 902 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “The court rejected this argument, indicating that the plaintiffs negligence judgment became a new and distinct obligation of the defendant corporation, and that a new action to pierce the defendant’s corporate veil to enforce the judgment was subject to the five-year statute of…”
Show all 51 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.