Real Estate Law

Urban Partnership Bank v. Winchester-Wolcott, LLC

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Mortgage Foreclosure
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 133556
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
MASON
Condo is not "residential real estate" under Mortgage Foreclosure Law if it is not occupied by mortgagor. Thus, bank's right to possession was dependent only on showing that such relief was warranted by provisions of mortgage and reasonable probability of prevailing in foreclosure. No requirement that mortgagee seek possession or appointment of receiver within certain time. (HYMAN and NEVILLE, concurring.)

Public Act 98-764 (corrected)

Topic: 
Mechanics Lien Act
(Mulroe, D-Chicago; Kelly Burke, D-Oak Lawn) provides that language barring certain agreements does not prohibit an agreement to subordinate a mechanics lien to a mortgage lien that secures a construction loan if that agreement is made after more than 50% of the loan has been disbursed to fund improvements to the property. Allows contractual provisions to be binding between the owner and contractor or a contractor and subcontractor that no lien or claim may be filed or maintained or that a contractor’s lien must be subordinated to the interests of any other party as long as it is not otherwise prohibited by this Act. Deletes language providing that the only admissible evidence of specified conditions of a contract as against a subcontractor or material supplier shall be proof of actual notice thereof to him or her before his or her contract is entered into. Deletes language providing that certain subordination provisions of contracts is not binding on the subcontractor unless set forth in its entirety in writing in the contract between the contractor and subcontractor or material supplier. Effective July 16, 2014.

CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Sconyers

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Mortgage Foreclosure
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 130023
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
MASON
(Court opinion corrected 7/17/14.) In mortgage foreclosure case, bank sustained its burden to show that it was holder of original note and mortgage and Defendants failed to adduce any competent evidence that endorsement on note had been altered, despite allegation that endorsement was "smudged." Thus, court properly granted summary judgment for bank. Undisputed fact that bank took assignment of mortgage from MERS gave it standing to maintain foreclosure action so that it was unnecessary to address claim of altered endorsement. (HYMAN, concurring; NEVILLE, dissenting.)

Public Act 98-764

Topic: 
Strict foreclosure of an omitted subordinate interest
(Mulroe, D-Chicago; Nekritz, D-Buffalo Grove) creates a procedure for the holder of title from a judicial sale to foreclose and clear title on an “omitted subordinate interest.” An OSI is a junior lienholder that was not made a party defendant in the previous foreclosure action and whose OSI was not terminated by the judgment of foreclosure when the property was sold by judicial sale. If the junior lienholder wishes to redeem, it must do so within 30 days after entry of the order redeeming title. The redemption sum will include the bid at the prior foreclosure sale, any costs and fees incurred after the sale for the payment of taxes, preservation of the property, or any other actions by the holder of the certificate of sale required to protect its interest in the property. The redemption amount will not include any costs or fees incurred by the holder of title that filed the strict foreclosure case. Effective July 16, 2014. Editor's Note: This is incorrect; the text of this bill is on the Governor's desk but he has taken no action on it yet. The text above relates to Senate Bill 2730. Therefore, Senate Bill 2730 is not a public act. My apologies.

Knight v. Enbridge Pipelines (FSP) LLC

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Easements
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-3481
Decision Date: 
July 16, 2014
Federal District: 
C.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Affirmed and vacated in part
Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiffs-landowners’ action seeking to quiet title on 1952 easement given to defendants to construct second underground pipeline across plaintiffs’ property. Instant easement granted defendants right to build second pipeline within 10 feet of first pipeline, and Ct. rejected plaintiff’s claims that said right had expired or that Rule Against Perpetuities applied to instant easement. Ct also rejected as speculative plaintiffs’ claim that proposed pipeline would be incompatible with existing surface farming.

Feliciano v. Geneva Terrace Estates

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Easements
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 130269
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HYMAN
Plaintiffs filed declaratory judgment action seeking declaratory judgment that there was no enforceable driveway easement between the vacant lot they purchased and adjoining lot. Court properly granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs, concluding that no driveway easement had been created, as there was no evidence of driveway easement in later filed association declarations, which include extensive description of other easements in planned development but do not mention this specific driveway easement. Court properly granted summary judgment for Defendants on alleged breach of fiduciary duties and indemnification. Plaintiffs failed to present sufficient facts for finding of breach of fiduciary duties or that breach was proximate cause of their damages, and proximate cause could not be shown, as a matter of law.(NEVILLE and PUCINSKI, concurring.)

House Bill 5322

Topic: 
Condominiums and common-interest communities
(Burke, D-Evergreen Park; Raoul, D-Chicago) amends the two acts that govern condos and common-interest communities so that communication may include “electronic transmission” for differing purposes under the two Acts. It creates procedures to do this that also require consent of the unit owner. It also prohibits secret ballots in elections for common-interest communities. Sent to the Governor.

Butler v. Harris

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Fraud
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (5th) 13-0163
Decision Date: 
Friday, June 27, 2014
District: 
5th Dist.
Division/County: 
Madison Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and reversed in part; remanded with directions.
Justice: 
GOLDENHERSH
Plaintiff homebuyers sued sellers for fraud and violations of Residential Real Property Disclosure Act, alleging failure to disclose septic system defects. Proper standard of proof to determine violations of Disclosure Act is clear and convincing evidence. Court properly found for Defendants on fraud count, as evidence as a whole suggested no reliance or no reasonable reliance. Court properly found for Defendants on Disclosure Act count, as evidence as to Defendants' knowledge was insufficient. Defendants are not entitled to attorney's fees, as Plaintiffs' suit was not meritless; two witnesses testified that Defendants should have been aware of problems with septic system. (WELCH and CATES, concurring.)

Bank of America, N.A. v. Kulesza

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Mortgage Foreclosure
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 132075
Decision Date: 
Friday, June 27, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
McBRIDE
Section 2.03(1) of Collection Act exempting banks from the Act's requirements is not limited to first-tier subsidiaries of banks. BAC Home Loans Servicing, the original plaintiff in foreclosure action, was owned by entities that were subsidiaries of Bank of America. Court may take judicial notice that other judicial decisions have recognized that BAC is a subsidiary of Bank of America and is thus exempt from Collection Act. (GORDON and PALMER, concurring.)