Real Estate Law

Matter regarding the statutory procedures for tax sales and whether section 22-5 of the Tax Code requires a purchaser to list all delinquent tax years “included in the sale” on the notice of sale form. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court finding that section 22-5 is satisfied by listing the sale tax year of the delinquent taxes the purchaser acquired an interest in at the tax sale as was done by the purchaser in this case and, as a result, the purchaser strictly complied with all of the notice requirements of the Tax Code and, further, that the buyer was not required to list any additional delinquent tax years for which it paid taxes to complete the sale. (ANNE M. BUKRE, GARMAN, THEIS, MICHAEL J. BURKE, OVERSTREET, and CARTER, concurring)

Plaintiffs were evicted from their Chicago apartment and filed suit alleging violations of the Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (RLTO) and for common-law conversation for the alleged unlawful disposal of plaintiffs’ personal property by defendants. The trial court dismissed five of the plaintiffs’ 11 counts based on the statute of limitations and dismissed the remaining counts for failure to state a cause of action. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal based on the statute of limitations, finding that the claims were subject to a five-year statute of limitations and not a two-year statute of limitations under the applicable provisions of the RLTO. The appellate court affirmed the dismissals for failure to state a cause of action but reversed the designation of the dismissal as being “with prejudice” so that the plaintiffs would have the opportunity to remedy the defects in their complaint. (McBRIDE and ELLIS, concurring)

Consolidated appeals involving final judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action and implicating the rules regarding stays of enforcement, the circuit court’s use of nunc pro tunc orders, appellate jurisdiction, and issues of mootness. Defendants appealed from the circuit court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, judgment of foreclosure and sale, order approving sale, and denial of their post-confirmation of sale motion to vacate the judgment. Plaintiff filed two notices of appeal, one from the circuit court order staying enforcement of the judgment, which was entered more than 30 days after the circuit court denied the postjudgment motion to vacate, and one from the circuit court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the order staying enforcement of the judgment. The appellate court dismissed defendants’ appeal as moot and plaintiff’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (HARRIS and MIKVA, concurring)

Plaintiff filed suit seeking to obtain unpaid rent pursuant to a lease of commercial premises. Defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract, seeking rent abatement. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and plaintiff appealed arguing that the doctrines of impossibility or commercial frustration did not excuse a restaurant from paying rent during a pandemic where public health orders never required that restaurants close and that no provision of the lease allowed for the renter to be excused from paying rent. The appellate court reversed, finding, first, that the pandemic was not a casualty for the purposes of the lease at issue because the lease referred solely to physical damage and, as a result, the provisions of the lease allowing for rent abatement under certain circumstances was not applicable and, second, that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the public health orders made it impossible for defendant to operate a restaurant on the leased premises. Thus, summary judgment was not appropriate on that issue and the appellate court remanded for further proceedings. (PIERCE and ODEN JOHNSON, concurring)

Appeal from trial court denial of three petitions to vacate tax sales and denial of motions to declare sales as sales in error under the Property Tax Code. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that there is no “timeliness” requirement in section 21-310(b)(2) of the Property Tax Code so that a tax sale purchaser need only obtain a tax deed within one year after the right of redemption expires and that the trial court erred when it concluded that proof of substantial destruction had to be shown to have occurred prior to the time the tax deed could have been issued as there is no such requirement in the statute. (HOLDER WHITE and STEIGMANN, concurring)

Plaintiffs condominium owners sued their condo association and board of managers alleging violation of sections 15 and 19 of the Condominium Property Act as well as breach of the common law fiduciary duties of disclosure, candor, and loyalty. The circuit court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The appellate court affirmed finding that the board was not required to obtain approval prior to investigating and initiating the bulk sale of condo units and that the unit owners’ role was limited to voting on whether to approve the sale. (PIERCE and HARRIS, concurring)