Real Estate Law

Defendant Bank of America obtained summary judgment in mortgage foreclosure case against Plaintiffs. Property was sold at a judicial sale, and order confirming sale was entered. Court entered order of possession against Plaintiffs in forcible entry and detainer suit filed thereafter. During pendency of summary judgment motion, Plaintiffs had attempted to remove case to federal court, which dismissed notice of removal but failed to remand matter to circuit court. Orders of summary judgment and confirmation of sale were held void. Circuit judge's failure to inform sheriff that eviction order was invalid does not fall under "administrative" exception to judicial immunity, as that judge had and never lost subject-matter jurisdiction over the eviction case. Court properly dismissed claims against that judge on basis of judicial immunity. Court properly dismissed "wrongful foreclosure" claim, even if re-styled as a claim for abuse of process or slander of title. Claim for "wrongful eviction" was properly dismissed, as complaint did not seek restoration of possession. Court properly dismissed claim for false imprisonment, as the eviction was carried out by Sheriff pursuant to a lawful court order, and Defendant Bank's role was several steps removed, and complaint does not allege any restraint. (McBRIDE and BURKE, concurring.)

Court dismissed mortgage foreclosure complaint, and denied Defendants' request for Rule 137 sanctions against Plaintiff. Bankruptcy discharge without affirmation means Defendant Rivkah is no longer bound by the mortgage contract, but she also can no longer use the HUD regulations as a defense. Noncompliance with HUD regulations is a defense to foreclosure. Based on default date alleged in the complaint, Plaintiff did not comply with HUD regulation 203.604 in a timely fashion. Appellate court's awarding of attorney fees and costs related to the appeal under section 1510 is discretionary. Remanded for trial court to determine whether such award is warranted.(McLAREN and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)

City filed complaint against owners of Pittsfield Building for building code violations as to the interior and exterior of the building. Court abused its discretion when it denied Defendant LLC’s motion to remove the court-appointed receiver. The receiver could not be impartial or carry out his fiduciary duties due to receiver’s conflict of interest, because of his other business relationship with another party in the case from which the receiver could have earned a substantial profit of $4.5 million and which was not initially disclosed to circuit court.(HARRIS and ODEN JOHNSON, concurring).

Village filed condemnation action against property owner under Eminent Domain Act. Section 10-5-70(a) fee petitioners must be brought within the condemnation action, while trial court retains its general jurisdiction, within 30 days of the entry of the final judgment in that action. Court properly dismissed Defendant's fee petition as untimely. (ZENOFF and BIRKETT, concurring.)