Construction Law
(Mulroe, D-Chicago; Martwick, D-Chicago) deletes the ability of condominium instruments to supersede a majority vote of the entire board of managers to do the following: assign the right of the association to future income from common expenses or other sources and to mortgage or pledge substantially all of the remaining assets of the association. Passed both chambers.
(Mulroe, D-Chicago; Martwick, D-Chicago) provides that any assignment of a developer’s interest in the property is not effective until the successor obtains the assignment in writing and records it. Passed both chambers.
(Nekritz, D-Buffalo Grove; Steans, D-Chicago) makes a number of changes to this Act. (1) Exempts from FOIA any information collected by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation. This exemption does not extend to educational, training, and outreach material, statistical data, or operational information maintained by the Department in administering the Act. (2) Clarifies that neither the Ombudsperson nor the Department has the authority to consider matters that may constitute unlawful discrimination under local, State, or federal law. (3) Makes numerous technical changes including deleting the registration requirement by an entity. (4) Pushes back the repeal date of the entire Act by one year to July 1, 2022. Passed both chambers.
(Althoff, R-Crystal Lake; Tryon, R-Crystal Lake) requires a copy of a lis pendens for a residential mortgage foreclosure in the program area to be filed electronically with the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation after July 1, 2016. Passed both chambers.
(Althoff, R-McHenry; Nekritz, D-Buffalo Grove) extends the sunset for current law until December 31, 2020. It requires work to be done or materials furnished to obtain a lien within three years for residential property and five years for any other kind of property. Passed both chambers.
(Biss, D-Skokie; Williams, D-Chicago) makes the following changes to the Act.
(1) Expands the definition of protected “personal information” to include a person’s first name or first initial and the last name that is encrypted or redacted but the unlocking keys have been breached if one of several “data elements” have also been unlawfully acquired. (2) Expands “data elements” to include medical information, health insurance information, unique biometric data. (3) Expands protected “personal information” to include user name or email address and password or security question information that permits a person’s online accounts to be breached. (4) Requires a data collector that owns or licenses, or maintains or stores but does not own or license, records that contain personal information of Illinois resident to implement and maintain reasonable security measures to protect those records from unauthorized access or use. (5) Compliance with the federal HIPAA complies with this Act as long as the covered entity provides notice of a breach to the Illinois Attorney General within notifying the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Effective January 1, 2017.
Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-subcontractor’s motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiff-general contractor alleging that defendant had failed to perform on subcontract, where Dist. Ct. could properly find that parties did not intend to be bound until execution of formal subcontract that was never signed by defendant. Record showed that: (1) plaintiff had accepted defendant’s bid on subcontract, but did not enter into formal contract at that time; (2) parties engaged in further negotiations over one year in duration that attempted to refine contract price and other terms of subcontract; (3) plaintiff eventually signed prime contract with project owner, whose project was subject of instant subcontract; (4) after plaintiff signed prime contract, it sent to defendant three proposed formal subcontracts that had three different contract prices; and (5) defendant subsequently “disengaged” from project after informing plaintiff that problems with its overseas supplier prevented it from performing on said project. Moreover, two letters of intent drafted after plaintiff had accepted defendant’s bid indicated that parties had not yet solidified their relationship into binding agreement. Ct. also rejected plaintiff’s claim that defendant was liable under promissory estoppel theory based on plaintiff’s use of defendant’s bid price when entering into agreement with project owner, since record showed that plaintiff continued to negotiate with defendant over subcontract price after plaintiff had entered into agreement with project owner.
(Moeller, D-Elgin; Bush, D-Grayslake) requires the park owner to give the tenant written notice specifying the reason for any fine that may be imposed on the tenant if the tenant breaches any provision of the lease or park rules. “Fine” does not include any fees that are imposed on a tenant for services or products provided by the park owner to the tenant.
If a fine is imposed on a tenant, the following applies for 45 days after written notice of the fine is delivered to the tenant: (1) non-payment of a fine is not grounds for refusal to accept a rent payment; and (2) the fine may not be deducted from a rent payment. Acceptance of a rent payment may not be construed as a waiver of an unpaid fine. Passed both chambers.
The Access to Justice Act created the Statutory Court Fee Task Force to study the current system of fees, fines, and other court costs and propose recommendations to the Illinois General Assembly and Illinois Supreme Court. Its report may be found at the URL below.
(Bryant, R-Mt. Vernon; Radogno, R-Lemont) provides that a requester that files an action seeking to enforce a binding opinion will have a rebuttable presumption that the public body willfully and intentionally failed to comply with this Act if: the attorney general issues a binding opinion under § 9.5 and the public body does not file for administrative review nor comply with it within 35 days after the binding opinion is served on the public body. This presumption may be rebutted by the public body showing that it is making a good-faith effort to comply with the binding opinion, but the compliance was not possible within the 35-day time frame. This section applies to binding opinions of the attorney general requested or issued on or after January 1, 2017.
It also allows the court to impose an additional penalty of up to $1,000 for each day the violation continues if: the public body fails to comply with the court’s order after 30 days; the court’s order is not appealed or stayed; and the court does not grant the public body additional time to comply with a court order to disclose public records. Changes apply to actions filed on or after January 1, 2017.