Construction Law

(Koehler, D-Peoria; Gordon-Booth, D-Peoria) creates the Installment Sales Contract Act. It will require that sales of residential real estate by installment contract conform to the Act. “Residential real estate” means real estate with a dwelling structure excluding property that is sold as a part of a tract of land consisting of four acres or more that is zoned for agricultural purposes.

It applies to sellers that enter into an installment sale contract more than three times during a 12-month period to sell residential real estate. Within ten days of the date of sale the seller must record the contract or a memorandum of the contract with the recorder of deeds. It prohibits the installment sale contract from forbidding the buyer to record the contract or a memorandum of the contract. Makes it a violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act to knowingly violate the Installment Sales Contract.

Passed both chambers; effective January 1, 2018 if signed into law. 

(Thapedi, D-Chicago; Raoul, D-Chicago) amends § 2-301 of the Code of Civil Procedure by changing the exception to the statute’s general rule. The general rule is that a party must object to the court’s jurisdiction (without waiving an objection to the court’s jurisdiction) over the party’s person by filing a motion to dismiss the entire proceeding or by filing a motion to quash service of process, but the party must do this before they file any other pleading.

House Bill 188’s exception to this general rule of waiver allows a motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead or a motion filed under § 2-1301, § 2-1401, and § 2-1401.1

But it requires any motion objecting to the court’s jurisdiction over the party’s person under § 2-301 must be filed within 60 days of the court’s order disposing of the initial motion filed under these three sections. A party may combine these motions without waiving their objection to jurisdiction.

House Bill 188 has passed the House and on third reading in the Senate. 

(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.