ILCS » Chapter 815 · Act 160
Illinois Compiled Statutes

815 ILCS 160/3 (2026)

Actions not considered agreements

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 160/3) (from Ch. 17, par. 7103)
    Sec. 3. Actions not considered agreements. The following actions do not give rise to a claim, counter-claim, or defense by a debtor that a new credit agreement is created, unless the agreement satisfies the requirements of Section 2:
    (1) the rendering of financial advice by a creditor to a debtor;
    (2) the consultation by a creditor with a debtor; or
    (3) the agreement by a creditor to modify or amend an existing credit agreement or to otherwise take certain actions, such as entering into a new credit agreement, forbearing from exercising remedies in connection with an existing credit agreement, or rescheduling or extending installments due under an existing credit agreement.
(Source: P.A. 86-613.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: Bank One, Springfield v. Roscetti, 723 N.E.2d 755 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bank One, Springfield v. Roscetti, 723 N.E.2d 755 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). · cites it 3× “The trial court likely reasoned that Robinson’s promise was properly characterized as an oral modification to the guaranty, and, because the guaranty is not a credit agreement, Robinson’s promise was not an oral agreement “to modify or amend an existing credit agreement” under…”
Whirlpool Fin. Corp., a Delaware Corp. v. Jean Sevaux, 96 F.3d 216 (7th Cir. 1996). · cites it 3× “Sevaux *224 amounts to a “new credit agreement” within the meaning of 815 ILCS 160/3(3) — one that would replace the $1 million note financing with equity and supply the remaining $16.”
Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass'n of Am. v. La Salle Nat'l Bank, 691 N.E.2d 881 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2× “” 815 ILCS 160/3 (West 1996). Defendants first contend that the plain words of the Act show that it did not bar their affirmative defenses and counterclaims.”
McAloon v. Nw. Bancorp, Inc., 654 N.E.2d 1091 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 2× “” (815 ILCS 160/3 (West 1992).) As stated, the section bars tortious causes of action such as the fraud and misrepresentation count plaintiffs alleged in their second amended complaint.”
Ron & Mark Ward, LLC v. Bank of Herrin, 2024 IL App (5th) 230274 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “Thus, the defendant contended that the Credit Agreements Act (Act) (815 ILCS 160/3 (West 2020)), which required that any amendment to a loan agreement be signed by both parties, controlled the validity of those five counts.”
Whirlpool Fin. Corp. v. Sevaux, 874 F. Supp. 181 (N.D. Ill. 1994). “In other words, WFC promised to “enter[ ] into a new credit agreement” with Sevaux—one which would replace the $1 million financing and supply the remaining $16.”
Whirlpool Fin. Corp. v. Sevaux, 866 F. Supp. 1097 (N.D. Ill. 1994). “815 ILCS 160/3 (emphasis added). As pleaded by Sevaux, there was no existing obligation that the oral agreement modified.”
Van Pelt Constr. Co., Inc. v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., 2014 IL App (1st) 121661 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “) 815 ILCS 160/3 (West 2010). Thus, an agreement to modify an existing credit agreement, or forbear from exercising remedies connected with an existing agreement, can give rise to a claim or defense that a new agreement has been formed, so long as the agreement satisfies section…”
Teachers Ins. v. LaSalle Nat'l Bank (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2× “” 815 ILCS 160/3 (West 1996). Defendants first contend that the plain words of the Act show that it did not bar their affirmative defenses and counterclaims.”
— 815 ILCS 160/3(3) — 2 cases
Whirlpool Fin. Corp., a Delaware Corp. v. Jean Sevaux, 96 F.3d 216 (7th Cir. 1996). “Sevaux *224 amounts to a “new credit agreement” within the meaning of 815 ILCS 160/3(3) — one that would replace the $1 million note financing with equity and supply the remaining $16.”
Bank One, Springfield v. Roscetti, 723 N.E.2d 755 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “The trial court likely reasoned that Robinson’s promise was properly characterized as an oral modification to the guaranty, and, because the guaranty is not a credit agreement, Robinson’s promise was not an oral agreement “to modify or amend an existing credit agreement” under…”
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.