Construction Law
(Hutchinson, D-Chicago Heights prohibits parties in civil litigation from using a preemptory challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of their race, color, religion, national origin, economic status, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Assigned to the Committee on Assignments waiting for referral to a substantive committee.
(Link, D-Gurnee) amends the existing statute to allow Lake County to impose a "judicial facilities fee" not to exceed $30 against all defendants in traffic and criminal cases and against all civil litigants. The fee would be used to construct new judicial facilities. Only Will and Kane counties have this authority under existing law. Scheduled for hearing in Senate Judiciary Committee.
(Manar, D-Bunker Hill) allows all county boards to impose by ordinance a “judicial facilities fee” on all defendants convicted in traffic and criminal cases and all civil litigants. The fee may not be more than $30. It also expands the use of this fee from defraying new construction to include renovating existing judicial facilities. Under current law, only Will and Kane counties have authority to do impose this fee for new construction. Scheduled for hearing Tuesday in Senate Judiciary Committee.
(McAsey, D-Lockport) provides that before a lease is signed, a landlord must provide each tenant any records pertaining to radon concentrations within the dwelling unit that indicate a radon hazard. If a tenant performs a radon test, the tenant must provide to the landlord the test result within 10 days after receiving the result. Before a lease is signed a landlord must furnish each prospective tenant with a prescribed radon hazard disclosure form. Nothing implies an obligation on a landlord or tenant to conduct any radon testing. Provides that a lease may be terminated under specified circumstances involving radon hazard. Referred to House Rules Committee.
(Althoff, R-McHenry) amends the Mechanics Lien Act. Current law 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. This part of the Act sunsetted January 1, 2016, and the limitation then reverts to three years for any kind of property at that time. Senate Bill 2450 re-extends the sunset for five years from the date that this bill would be signed into law. Referred to the Senate Committee on Assignments.
Record contained sufficient evidence to support Commission’s finding that employer committed “willful,” as opposed to “serious,” cave-in excavation violation of OSHA regulations at worksite in which employer was attempting to replace fire hydrant waterline. Applicable regulations called for employer to slope sides of excavation at no steeper than 45 degrees, and slopes at instant worksite were between 60 and 80 degrees. Moreover, instant violation qualified as “willful” violation that carried larger penalty because record showed that: (1) foreman at worksite was aware of slope requirement and yet failed to take any action to meet guideline requirement; and (2) foreman indicated that he sacrificed instant safety compliance in order to save time on job. Ct. rejected employer’s argument that Commission had failed to give proper deference to ALJ’s credibility determinations, which led to ALJ finding that violation was only “serious,” where Ct. observed that ALJ held erroneous belief that employer took reasonable steps to slope excavation site.
(Modified upon denial of rehearing 1/28/16.) Plaintiff condominium association and its elected board of managers filed sued various development companies for construction project, alleging breach of implied warranty of habitability, fraud, negligence, breach of Chicago Municipal Code's prohibition against misrepresenting material facts in marketing and selling real estate, and breach of fiduciary duty. Allegations of complaint were sufficient to raise question of fact as to time when Plaintiffs knew or reasonably should have known that their injury was wrongfully caused. As to breach of fiduciary duty count, questions presented are questions of fact, and allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action. Complaint adequately alleged fiduciary duty in connection with fraudulent concealment doctrine, and question of fact remains as to whether Defendants' failure to speak about construction deficiencies or to adequately fund reserve fund, along with other alleged misrepresentations, was fraudulent concealment to invoke exceptions to statute of limitations and of repose.(GARMAN, KILBRIDE, and THEIS, concurring; BURKE, FREEMAN, and KARMEIER, dissenting.)
(Drury, D-Highwood) amends this Article for actions for possession for unpaid condominium expenses. A unit owner may raise as defenses: (1) a material breach of any duty set forth in the Condominium Property Act, governing condominium instruments, rules and regulations, or any applicable statute or ordinance applicable to the unit owner’s possession of the condominium unit; or (2) an improper motive for bringing the action. It also bars an association from recovering any attorney’s fees and costs against a unit owner if the association is found by a court to have breached an obligation under this Article or the Condominium Property Act; or in the case of any member of the association’s board of managers, he or she is found to have breached a fiduciary duty to the unit owner or the association. Introduced and referred to House Rules Committee.
(Drury, D-Highwood) makes a number of changes to this Act, which are as follows. (1) Contains a statement of public policy that a unit owner has the right to fairness in litigation or other legal action regardless whether the unit owner instigates it or the association does. (2) Allows a unit owner to bring a legal action against the association or its board of managers to enforce individual or common-interest community rights without being required to sue other homeowners or otherwise name them as defendants. Any cost to provide a notice to unit owners is to be paid by the association and may not be assessed against the unit owner bringing the action. (3) Voids as a matter of public policy any provision of any condominium instrument or any rule or regulation seeking to limit a unit owner’s right to commence litigation against an association or its board of managers or to limit the liability of an association or its board of managers for a breach of duty. (4) Provides that a unit owner’s compliance with an association’s demand does not waive the unit owner’s right or ability to challenge the demand in a legal action commenced later. (5) Requires a unit owner to be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees to enforce this Act (a) to the extent the unit owner prevails as a plaintiff; or (b) the unit owner as defendant prevails on any affirmative defense or counterclaim for a breach by the association or its board of managers for an obligation under this Act, condominium instruments, rules and regulations, or another applicable statute or ordinance. (6) Requires the association be awarded its reasonable attorney’s fees to enforce this Act but that the court may reduce the award or in part or entirely if: (a) the court finds that the legal action benefited the association by clarifying its duties; or (b) based on other equitable considerations. (7) Bars the association from recovering any attorney’s fees and costs in a claim brought under the Forcible Entry and Detainer Article of the Code of Civil Procedure if the unit owner prevails based on a breach of duty by the association or by any member of its board of managers. (8) Provides that in litigation, the association is required to represent the best interests of all unit owners and the association without regard to the wishes of the board of managers. (9) Provides that the association may not be represented in litigation by counsel who also represents the association’s board of managers either individually or collectively. Introduced and referred to House Rules Committee.
(Radogno, R-Lemont) amends the Code of Civil Procedure to make the following changes. (1) Deletes a provision authorizing an action to be commenced in any county when all defendants are nonresidents of this State. (2) Under current law, corporations and partnerships are considered to be residents of any county in which they are doing business. Senate Bill 2153 limits this provision only if on due inquiry no office can be found in Illinois. (3) Deletes residency for a partnership on the basis that any partner resides in that county. (4) Deletes residency of any insurance company for any county in which a plaintiff or one of the plaintiffs resides. (5) Provides that in actions in which no party is a resident of this State and over which another forum has jurisdiction, the court shall, upon motion, dismiss the action unless the cause of action primarily arise in Illinois or the interests of justice require that the action proceed here. (6) Provides that joint and several liability attaches if a defendant is found to be 50%, rather than 25%, at fault. (7) Limits amounts recovered for medical care, treatment, or services and caretaking expenses to the amounts actually paid for those expenses regardless of the amounts initially billed. Referred to Senate Assignments Committee.