Construction Law
Court properly dismissed Complaint with prejudice, as condominium association's bylaws, declarations, and Condominium Property Act authorized Plaintiff to be charged the amount "not covered by insurance" in damage resulting from fire that originated in Plaintiff's unit and caused damage to building, and assessed $10,000 deductible against Plaintiff. (HARRIS and MIKVA, concurring.)
(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.
(Wheeler, Keith; R-North Aurora) provides upon signing and dating the disclosure report, the prospective buyer accepts and acknowledges that the prospective buyer has received the residential real property disclosure report form in its entirety, including the disclosure report and a copy of the Act. Scheduled for hearing in House Judiciary Committee March 8.
(McDermed, R-Frankfort) provides an owner, contractor, or subcontractor may not, by contract or otherwise, waive, affect, or impair any other claimant’s rights unless the claimant executes and delivers a waiver and release under specified conditions and in conformance with a statutory form. Includes some exceptions. Scheduled for hearing in House Judiciary Committee March 8.
Three consolidated appeals, all arising from condominium association's suit alleging defects in design and construction of a condo development in Evanston. Court properly dismissed claims for breach of implied warranty of habitability, as such claims may not be asserted against design professionals and materials suppliers who did not actually perform construction work. A property owner is not barred from asserting claim of breach of implied warranty of habitability against subcontractor of insolvent developer or general contractor. Court properly dismissed counterclaims of condo development's general contractor (which is insolvent and has been dissolved), as counterclaims were not asserted within a reasonable time after its dissolution. (HOFFMAN and DELORT, concurring.)
(Oberweis, R-Sugar Grove) provides that the notice to parties in a contested case under the Act shall be served, among other forms of service, by electronic mail. Provides that parties in a contested case under the Act shall be notified, among other forms of notification, by electronic mail of any decision or order in that case.
Provides that an agency may require all attorneys to designate an electronic mail address to which all documents required under certain specified sections may be transmitted. Provides that if an attorney is required to designate an electronic mail address, he or she must designate one primary electronic mail address, and may designate no more than two secondary electronic mail addresses.
Provides that an agency may request, but not require, an unrepresented party to designate an electronic mail address to which all documents required under certain specified sections may be transmitted.
Allows an agency to, by rule, make electronic mail the default option for service of documents. Provides that service by electronic mail is complete on the first business day following transmission. It has just been introduced.
(Guzzardi, D-Chicago) repeals this Act. It has just been introduced.
(Barickman, R-Bloomington) provides a means for correcting inadvertent failures to correctly name necessary parties in actions for administrative review, which are called misnomers.
(1) It amends the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to mandate that final administrative orders list all of the parties of record together with their last known address of record. The final order must also include whether there are any agency rules requiring a motion for reconsideration as a part of obtaining a reviewable final administrative decision and, if so, the rules citation.
(2) It amends the ARL to prohibit an action for administrative review to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based on the misnomer of any agency that is properly served with summons issued in the action within the applicable time limits. It also prohibits dismissal for failure to perfectly name an agent if a timely action of administrative review has been filed that identifies the final administrative decision under review and makes a good faith effort to properly name the administrative agency.
(3) It amends the ARL to allow a court to correct misnomers for an erroneous identification of the administrative agency.
Senate Bill 584 passed out of Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday but will receive some tweaking amendments.
(Barickman, R-Bloomington) provides that if a landlord or the landlord's attorney is unable to personally serve the demand on the tenant, then constructive service of the demand may be used. Senate Bill 758 was just introduced.