Real Estate Law

Plaintiff filed a verified complaint for eviction against defendant seeking possession and a money judgment. The matter proceeded to bench trial and at the close of plaintiff’s case the trial court entered a directed finding in favor of the defendant. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed five days after the time for filing a notice of appeal expired. Plaintiff had argued that its notice of appeal was timely filed, but was initially rejected by the court’s electronic filing manager. The appellate court found this was not supported by the record, but even if it was, the appellant did not seek appropriate relief from either the trial or the appellate court for leave to file a late notice of appeal. (McLAREN and HUTCHINSON, concurring)

Appeal from a partition action. The subject property was sold at a judicial sale and the buyer sought reimbursement from previous owners for payment he made to satisfy a tax lien on the property. The circuit court denied the request. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court properly applied the doctrine of caveat emptor to the claim noting that the buyer, as a purchaser at a judicial sale, was chargeable with notice of the lien and that there was no fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake related to the purchase. (MIKVA and ODEN JOHNSON, concurring)

In a case involving the Condominium Property Act, the court considered whether section 22.1 of the Act provided an implied cause of action in favor of a condominium unit seller against a property manager, as agent of a condominium association or board of directors, based on allegations that the property manager charged excessive fees for the production of information required to be disclosed to a prospective buyer under the Act. The supreme court answered the question in the negative finding that section 22.1 did not create an implied private right of action by condominium unit sellers. (THEIS, ANNE M. BURKE, NEVILLE, OVERSTREET, and HOLDER WHITE, concurring and MICHAEL J. BURKE, specially concurring)

Petitioner filed petitions for sales in error under section 21-310(a)(5) of the Property Tax Code, contending that the Cook County Treasurer and Collector made errors relating to two properties on the delinquency list that were sold to the petitioner. The trial court granted the petitions and the respondent appealed asserting that no error occurred. The appellate court agreed and reversed, finding that including the classifications of the properties from two years prior to the sale on the property sales list was not an error and could not serve as a basis for finding a sale in error. (CUNNINGHAM and DELORT, concurring)

Petitioner filed petitions for sales in error for two properties under section 21-310(a)(5) of the Property Tax Code, contending that the assessor incorrectly assessed the two properties. The circuit court granted both petitions and the respondent appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that errors in whether the two subject properties had garages were errors that warranted a sale in error under section 21-310(a)(5). (CUNNINGHAM and DELORT, concurring)

At issue on appeal was whether a title company’s refusal to defend and indemnify homeowners against an easement claim in a chancy action was a breach of the title company’s contractual duty to defend. The appellate court held that the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the title company on the breach of contract and fraud claims and properly dismissed an additional count in the complaint for being barred by the two-year statute of limitations governing claims for legal malpractice. The appellate court also concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s requests for additional discovery. (HOFFMAN and ROCHFORD, concurring)