Real Estate Law

In 2003, Plaintiffs sold some parcels of land to Defendant Forest Preserve District. Along with other persons, total land sold to District was 531.8 acres. Eventually, the deeds were rerecorded and the restrictive covenant language removed. Plaintiffs filed complaint against District, and court properly dismissed complaint, as Plaintiffs lack standing. Plaintiffs are not successors to the interest of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and its agreement with the Forest Preserve District. (BURKE and SPENCE, concurring.)

Owner of condo unit filed complaint alleging that condo board members and Association (HOA) violated the Condominium Property Act by fining him for expressing his opinions about condo management. Plaintiff adequately alleged that board members violated the Act by penalizing him for expressing his opinions. Plaintiff presented evidence that could support a finding that board members violated Act when denying his request for recording of disciplinary hearing, and that HOA and board members breached fiduciary duties in failing to disclose to Plaintiff the evidence against him. A plaintiff states a cause of action against HOA for violation of his right to free speech by alleging that association precluded him from expressing his political opinion or that HOA penalized him for expressing his opinions. (PUCINSKI, concurring; MASON, dissenting.)

An informal pathway behind a condo building, through and beyond a parking area to the rear entrance of the building is not a “sidewalk” under the Snow and Ice Removal Act’s immunity provision for removal of snow or ice from a “sidewalk”. A “sidewalk”, within meaning of the Act, is limited to the municipal right-of-way, the part of the public street reserved for pedestrian use that abuts private residential property. (BURKE and GORDON, concurring.)

Court properly denied Defendant's motion to seal her eviction court file. Plain language of Section 9-121(b) of Eviction Act, which allows for discretionary sealing of court file, requires court to render findings as to 3 distinct elements where determination of the 1st element must be made in consideration of whether the case when pending had a sufficient legal and factual basis. (LAMPKIN and ROCHFORD, concurring.)

Plaintiff filed foreclosure action as to single family home. Defendant produced a certification stating that she did not receive an acceleration notice. Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that would entitle it to a presumption that it had mailed an acceleration notice to Defendant. Question of fact exists as to whether Plaintiff properly provided notice as required under the mortgage, and thus summary judgment and order approving sale should not have been granted. (BURKE and McBRIDE, concurring.)

Bank filed foreclosure as to condominium unit and later was successful bidder at judicial foreclosure sale. Court properly dismissed declaratory judgment action filed by bank, as its payments of postsale assessments were untimely and thus failed to confirm extinguishment of lien of condo association for delinquent presale assessments under Section 9(g)(3) of Condominium Property Act. Bank cannot use declaratory judgment process to contest validity of a lien for presale assessments that has already been satisfied by payment by bank. (REYES and HALL, concurring.)

Prompt payment by bank of postforeclosure sale assessments, several months after purchasing a condominium unit at a judicial foreclosure sale, extinguished lien of condo association for preforeclosure sale assessments pursuant to Section 9(g)(3) of Condominium Property Act. (MASON and HYMAN, concurring.)