Stats Posted December 30, 2021 at 06:44 PM Share Posted December 30, 2021 at 06:44 PM (The Center Square) – Illinois State Police will no longer be charging vendor fees for applicants of the Firearm Owner’s Identification Card. They’ll also have to pay legal fees of up to $100,000 in a lawsuit brought by an applicant who said he was overcharged. Some FOID card holders Wednesday were sent a notification about an agreement to settle a class action case involving the fees paid for applying for a FOID card. Some payment options included a fee above the $10 laid out in state law. “Generally, the case alleges that 430 ILCS 65/5 sets the cost for an Illinois Firearms Owners Identification Card at $10.00,” the notification sent by email said. “However, since March 15, 2015, Defendants have charged the $10.00 statutory fee plus applicable processing fee for an Illinois [FOID]. Currently, there exists no mechanism to obtain an Illinois Firearms Owners Identification Card for $10.00.” The case in Madison County has Gary Terr as an individual suing the chief of the ISP Firearms Services Bureau and Illinois Treasurer Michael Frerichs on behalf of others. “The parties have agreed to a proposed settlement,” the notification said. Messages seeking comment from the Illinois Attorney General’s office, which is representing the state, were not returned Wednesday. In response to the notification, a public information officer for Illinois State Police Wednesday sent a statement to The Center Square. “On November 29, 2021, the Madison County Court entered an order of preliminary approval of the class action case Sterr v. Hacker, 15-L-1337,” the ISP statement said. “The settlement provides that ISP will add an option to pay the FOID Card application fee through an electronic check using the Automated Clearing House (ACH) system, resulting in a charge of $10.00 with no additional vendor fee paid by the applicant.” The notification sent to FOID card holders said the agreement means no processing fee above $10, “unless and until the Illinois General Assembly changes the law.” “In exchange, Defendants will pay class counsel up to $100,000.00 in litigation costs and attorney fees, as ultimately approved by the Court,” the notification says. The notification also lays out how a class member could file a legal objection to the settlement. The Maag Law Firm listed in the notification couldn’t be reached for comment Wednesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted January 1, 2022 at 08:45 PM Share Posted January 1, 2022 at 08:45 PM And how will the state refund that "convenience fee"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted January 1, 2022 at 11:00 PM Share Posted January 1, 2022 at 11:00 PM On 1/1/2022 at 3:45 PM, JTHunter said: And how will the state refund that "convenience fee"? It's a civil suit. The state sends the settlement amount to the lawyers that represent the class. The lawyers take a cut, pay the class representatives in full, then distribute the prorated remainder among the non-representative class members, usually by mailing a check. The postage is also deducted from the settlement. That's why you won't get a whole $1 back. If you want the whole $1 back, you need to opt out of the current class by the deadline, bring an independent suit, and win it, which will cost way more than $1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted January 1, 2022 at 11:30 PM Share Posted January 1, 2022 at 11:30 PM That's what I thought. Lawyers !! 🤬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2A4Cook Posted January 2, 2022 at 12:14 AM Share Posted January 2, 2022 at 12:14 AM Class actions in most cases really only financially benefits the lawyers, unless it's REALLY high-dollar litigation like tobacco, prescription drugs, etc. It helps keep defendants honest to some degree, though. In this case, the envelope, postage and cost of the check will probably cost more than most class members receive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallbore Posted January 2, 2022 at 03:48 AM Share Posted January 2, 2022 at 03:48 AM The lawyers are doing all the work. I have no problem with them getting a big chunk of change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragsbo Posted January 2, 2022 at 06:16 PM Share Posted January 2, 2022 at 06:16 PM On 1/1/2022 at 9:48 PM, Smallbore said: The lawyers are doing all the work. I have no problem with them getting a big chunk of change. My problem with it all is the money is coming out of my taxes and fees and not the politicians personal bank account Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallbore Posted January 2, 2022 at 06:33 PM Share Posted January 2, 2022 at 06:33 PM On 1/2/2022 at 12:16 PM, ragsbo said: My problem with it all is the money is coming out of my taxes and fees and not the politicians personal bank account No argument from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2A4Cook Posted January 2, 2022 at 10:20 PM Share Posted January 2, 2022 at 10:20 PM On 1/2/2022 at 12:16 PM, ragsbo said: My problem with it all is the money is coming out of my taxes and fees and not the politicians personal bank account I agree. However, even though they did something they technically were not authorized to do, they are still covered by immunity from personal liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragsbo Posted January 3, 2022 at 12:40 AM Share Posted January 3, 2022 at 12:40 AM On 1/2/2022 at 4:20 PM, 2A4Cook said: I agree. However, even though they did something they technically were not authorized to do, they are still covered by immunity from personal liability. That needs to change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.