(Barickman, R-Bloomington; Halpin, D-Rock Island) upgrades the TODI Act since its enactment in 2012 to resolve questions or issues that have surfaced in the nine years since the Act has been used. Effective Jan. 1, 2022.
Plaintiff LLC petitioned for administrative review of the decision of Illinois Department of Agriculture awarding a permit to Defendant LLC to operate a medical cannabis cultivation center in Aurora, Illinois. Matter involves the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act and the correlating rules adopted by the Department for its enforcement of the relevant provisions of the Act. The Department provided a definition for the Act's reference to "area zoned for residential use" as an "area zoned exclusively for residential use. City passed an ordinance, before it issued the special use permit to Defendant LLC, amending its zoning to authorize medical cannabis cultivation centers int he city as a special use in zoning districts so long as the cultivation centers complied with the geographic locations restricts as set forth in the Act. The location requirement as interpreted by the Department applies equally to all municipalities statewide, and does not impermissibly limit the scope of the Act. (A. BURKE, GARMAN, THEIS, NEVILLE, and CARTER, concurring.)
(Barickman, R-Bloomington ) amends the Real Property Transfer on Death Instrument Act to make numerous changes since its enactment in 2012 to reflect practitioners' experience with the original Act. It has just been introduced. The changes are as follows:
(1) The definition of owner is revised to reflect that only individuals acting in their own personal capacity can execute a TODI.
(2) The term “residential real estate” is replaced throughout the text with the term “real property.” Illinois is the only state to date that limits the availability of a TODI to residential real estate.
(3) Clarifies that a TODI can transfer the real property to the beneficiary in any form of ownership recognized and valid under state law.
(4) Clarifies that a TODI can designate the trustee of a trust that may be amended, modified, revoked or terminated after the date the TODI is executed, and a trustee under a will of another individual who has predeceased the owner.
(5) Clarifies that a TODI may not be admitted to probate as the will of the owner or as a codicil to the owner’s will.
(6) Clarifies that a TODI witnessed by only one witness, even if notarized, is not a valid TODI. It also clarifies that the attestation clause language and formalities to be followed in executing the TODI require only “substantial compliance.”
(7) Clarifies that the owner may transfer the real property at any time without regard to the fact a TODI is filed. A transfer of the real property effectively revokes the TODI, not by means of a revocation, but by the doctrine of extinction by ademption.
(8) Regarding the default rules that govern when two or more beneficiaries are designated, Illinois law presumes when property is deeded or transferred to two or more parties, the parties take equal shares as tenants in common and not as joint tenants unless otherwise indicated. Stating the default rule, though perhaps not legally necessary, will avoid a possible ambiguity and clarify the default rule governing lapses and concurrent ownership.
(9) Clarifies that unless waived by the surviving spouse, a TODI is subject to renunciation by the surviving spouse and provides the procedure by which the rights are to be exercised.
(10) Clarifies the currently vague language on the rights of creditors with more specific language borrowed from the Uniform Law Commission but consistent with long-standing Illinois law.
(Barickman, R-Bloomington) amends the Conveyances Act to create a statutory form for special warranty deeds. Provides that every deed in substance in the specified form shall be deemed and held a conveyance in fee simple, to the grantee, his or her heirs and assigns, with specified covenants on the part of the grantor. It has just been introduced.
Plaintiffs filed a "private temporary nuisance action" against Defendants, alleging that their hog farming operations created foul and obnoxious odors that interfered with Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their neighboring properties. Jury verdict for Defendants. Court erred in denying Defendants' motion for reasonable attorney fees, as a prevailing defendant is entitled to recover aggregate costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the defense of a nuisance action, with reasonable attorney fees, under section 4.5 of the Farm Nuisance Suit Act. Section 4.5 is not arbitrary and does not violate the especial legislation clause or separation of powers clause of the Illinois Constitution or the equal protection clause. Facebook posts made by one juror after verdict do not show that juror was biased or that she lied during voir dire. Court did not err in refusing to give adverse-inference jury instruction, as court found that "missing evidence" was cumulative. (STEIGMANN and HOLDER WHITE, concurring.)
Dist. Ct. erred in granting plaintiffs’ request for issuance of preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin Indiana statute that prohibited individuals from manufacture, delivery or possession of smokeable hemp, where plaintiffs argued that said statute was preempted by Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (AIA), which removed industrial hemp from DEA’s schedule of controlled substances, but also: (1) allowed States to regulate production of hemp; and (2) precluded states from prohibiting transportation or shipment of hemp. As such, instant injunction was overbroad because Indiana statute’s prohibition of manufacture of smokeable hemp did not fall within ambit of AIA’s express preemption clause, and because AIA indicated that states were still free to regulate industrial hemp production within their own borders. On remand, Dist. Ct. is free to issue injunction to prevent Indiana from enforcing portion of its statute that precluded transportation of smokeable hemp through Indiana in interstate commerce.
was issued by Governor Pritzker yesterday. It orders the following for the duration of the Gubernatorial Disaster Proclamation for COVIR-19:
(1) the requirement that a person must "appear before" a notary public commissioned under the Illinois Notary Public Act is satisfied if: the notary public performs a remote notarization via two-way audio-video communication technology; the notary public is physically within the State while performing the notarial act; and the transaction follows the guidance posted by the Illinois Secretary of State on its website;
(2) any act of witnessing required by Illinois law may be completed remotely by via two-way audio-video communication technology if specified requirements are met;
(3) specified provisions of the Electronic Commerce Security Act that prohibit electronic signatures on certain documents remain in full effect;
(4) notwithstanding any law or rule of the State to the contrary, absent an express prohibition in a document against signing in counterparts, all legal documents, including deeds, last wills and testaments, trusts, durable powers of attorney for property, and powers of attorney for health care, may be signed in counterparts by the witnesses and the signatory; a notary public must be presented with a fax or electronic copy of the document signature pages showing the witness signatures on the same date the document is signed by the signatory if the notary public is being asked to certify to the appearance of the witnesses to a document.
(Koehler, D-Peoria) amends the Conveyances Act to provide that if the Act requires information to be in writing or delivered in writing, or provides for consequences if it is not, an electronic record or electronic delivery satisfies that requirement. If the Act requires a deed, instrument, record, or other document or information to be executed, signed, or subscribed to in writing, an electronic signature or digital signature satisfies that requirement. Assigned to the Committee on Assignments.
(Didech, D-Buffalo Grove) amends the Eviction Article of the Code of Civil Procedure to provide if the plaintiff is unable to obtain personal service on the defendant, the sheriff must cause the notice of eviction litigation to be posted on the website of the county where the cause is to be tried at least 10 days before the day set for the appearance. Applies only in counties that have a website maintained by the county. Just introduced.
(Didech, D-Highwood; Crowe, D-Wood River) amends the Illinois Partition Act to create a new set of procedures regulating the partition of property held in tenancy in common by one or more cotenants who are related or who acquired an interest in the property from a person related to the tenant by blood, marriage, or adoption. The Act applies only if one or more of the following conditions exist:
(1) 20 percent or more of the interests are held by cotenants who are related; (2) 20 percent or more of the interests are held by an individual or related entity who acquired title from a relative during the relative’s life or at death; or (3) 20 percent of the cotenants are relatives.
If the Act applies, the court is required to determine the fair market value of the property and give the cotenants who do not seek a partition of the property by sale the opportunity to purchase the interest of any cotenant who seeks to partition the property by sale. If no cotenant purchases the property and the property is not susceptible to being partitioned in kind, the Act provides the method by which the property is to be sold and costs apportioned.
Passed both chambers.