Real Estate Law

(Fine, D-Glenview) deletes language providing that specified records may be inspected “only for a proper purpose.” Also deletes language that in an action to compel examination of specified records, the burden of proof is upon the member to establish that the member's request is based on a proper purpose. Scheduled for hearing this Thursday in House Judiciary Committee. 

(Hurley, D-Chicago) removes a repeal date of June 1, 2018 in a Section concerning a county recorder's ability to establish procedures for investigating filings that would cause the recorder to reasonably believe that the filing may be fraudulent, unlawfully altered, or intended to unlawfully cloud or transfer the title of any real property. On second reading in the House. 

(Walsh, D-Joliet) provides that on and after January 1, 2019, a county shall adopt and implement a predictable fee schedule that eliminates surcharges or fees based upon the individual attributes of documents to be recorded with the county recorder. Provides that fees for standard documents are divided into five classifications of document class flat fees, which are inclusive of county and State fees required for each recorded document. Provides for methods that the non-predictable fees may be increased prior to adopting document class flat fees. Provides that prior to increasing a document class flat fee, a cost study must be completed showing that the increase is needed because the document class flat fees are not sufficient to cover the cost of providing the service. Defines "standard document" and "nonstandard document." Scheduled for hearing March 23, 2017 in the House Counties & Township Committee. 

(Barickman, R-Bloomington) redefines “omitted subordinate interest” to include a person who was a named party in the foreclosure action over which the court lacked personal jurisdiction due to defective service of process.

The foreclosure proceeding may be reopened as to the defendant only if the defendant: (1) was a named party in the foreclosure action over which the court lacked personal jurisdiction due to defective service of process; and (2) has a meritorious defense to the foreclosure action. After the foreclosure proceeding is reopened, if the defendant is unsuccessful in defeating the foreclosure action, then the defendant shall have the option to redeem pursuant to subsection (e) of this Section. Nothing contained in this Section affects any existing right that the holder of the certificate of sale or any person who acquired title under Section 15-1509 or any subsequent successor, assignee, transferee, or grantee of that person may have against the defendant or the real estate.

The redemption period shall extend 30 days after the entry of the order if the defendant has not been in possession of the real estate for a period of six months before entry of the order.

If an omitted subordinate interest asserts a challenge to the jurisdiction of the trial court following confirmation of the sale and transfer of title to the mortgaged real estate to a non-party to the underlying foreclosure action who acquired title for value, the trial court shall permit the non-party to retain possession of the mortgaged real estate pending entry of a final order relative to the jurisdiction challenge and any subsequent proceedings in the foreclosure action if the non-party provides adequate security for any loss of use or occupancy by the person who has the omitted subordinate interest. For purposes of this Section, a bond presented to, approved by, and filed with the court shall be deemed to provide adequate security.

Senate Amendment No. 1 was filed last week. 

(Barickman, R-Bloomington) redefines “omitted subordinate interest” to include a person who was a named party in the foreclosure action over which the court lacked personal jurisdiction due to defective service of process.

The foreclosure proceeding may be reopened as to the defendant only if the defendant: (1) was a named party in the foreclosure action over which the court lacked personal jurisdiction due to defective service of process; and (2) has a meritorious defense to the foreclosure action. After the foreclosure proceeding is reopened, if the defendant is unsuccessful in defeating the foreclosure action, then the defendant shall have the option to redeem pursuant to subsection (e) of this Section. Nothing contained in this Section affects any existing right that the holder of the certificate of sale or any person who acquired title under Section 15-1509 or any subsequent successor, assignee, transferee, or grantee of that person may have against the defendant or the real estate.

The redemption period shall extend 30 days after the entry of the order if the defendant has not been in possession of the real estate for a period of six months before entry of the order.

If an omitted subordinate interest asserts a challenge to the jurisdiction of the trial court following confirmation of the sale and transfer of title to the mortgaged real estate to a non-party to the underlying foreclosure action who acquired title for value, the trial court shall permit the non-party to retain possession of the mortgaged real estate pending entry of a final order relative to the jurisdiction challenge and any subsequent proceedings in the foreclosure action if the non-party provides adequate security for any loss of use or occupancy by the person who has the omitted subordinate interest. For purposes of this Section, a bond presented to, approved by, and filed with the court shall be deemed to provide adequate security.

Senate Amendment No. 1 was filed last week. 

(Welch, D-Westchester) replaces references to the term “transfer instrument” with “transfer.” Changes the definitions of “family member” and “transfer.” Provides that if the court determines the transferor lacked the requisite capacity to convey, the entire transfer instrument shall be deemed void. Provides that if the property in question is an interest in real property, a purchaser or mortgagee for value and without notice, before the recordation of a lis pendens for an action, shall take free and clear of the action. Provides that a holder of property shall not be liable for distributing or releasing the property to the transferee if the distribution or release occurs before the holder becomes a party to an action challenging the transfer. Scheduled for hearing in House Judiciary Committee March 8.