Real Estate Law

Plaintiff, a condominium association, filed a lawsuit against a condominium owner alleging that she had violated association rules by invading the building’s common elements when she raised the ceiling height in her unit without seeking prior approval from the board of directors. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment and the trial court found in favor of the association and entered monetary damages against the defendant. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err when it entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff and agreed with the trial court’s findings that the defendant was provided sufficient notice of the alleged rule violation and that the board properly ratified its prior determination that the ceiling renovation violated the rules. The appellate court further concluded that the trial court did not err in its calculation of monetary damages. (BRENNAN and ALBRECHT, concurring)

In a foreclosure proceeding the debtors defaulted on their residential mortgage and after several unsuccessful attempts at personal service were served via publication. The property was ultimately sold in a judicial sale to the bank and then by the bank to a third party. Subsequently the debtors filed bankruptcy and filed a petition to quash service of process of the foreclosure complaint. After additional proceedings in the trial and appellate courts the trial court dismissed the petition to quash as being barred by laches and the debtors appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the defense of laches precluded the debtors’ sufficiency of service claim. (HETTEL and ALBRECHT, concurring)

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against defendants alleging breach of contract relating to a contract for the sale of a gas station property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court properly entered summary judgment for the plaintiffs and that the trial court did not err when it ordered recission of the contract as a remedy for defendant’s breach. (HYMAN and C.A. WALKER, concurring)

Petitioner, a tax purchaser of property, appealed from a trial court order denying petitioner’s petition for a tax deed after the property owner objected on strict compliance arguments. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court properly interpreted section 21-385 of the Property Tax Code when it upheld respondent’s objection based on a failure of the petitioner to obtain leave of court for an extension of the redemption period. The appellate court also found that the trial court correctly upheld objection premised on a failure to obtain diligent service on an interested party. (FITZGERALD SMITH and COGHLAN, concurring)

Petitioners purchased delinquent taxes on properties. The homeowners subsequently pursued bankruptcy relief under Chapter 13 and petitioners were granted sale-in-error orders under the Property Tax Code. In consolidated appeals, respondent, the Will County Clerk, appealed from a trial court order compelling the respondent to comply with the sale-in-error orders by refunding the petitioners’ petition costs. On appeal the respondent argued that he was not required to refund the petition costs because the petition costs were not posted to the tax judgment, sale, redemption, and forfeiture record due to the property owners’ bankruptcies. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed. (PETERSON and ALBRECHT, concurring)

In a mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant appealed from orders of the circuit court entering summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff that confirmed the sale of the property and entered a deficiency judgment against the defendant. Defendant argued on appeal that the trial court erred because the release of the mortgage barred the foreclosure and plaintiff did not provide evidence of fraud, duress, illegality, or mutual mistake. Defendant also argued that the trial court erred when it entered a deficiency judgment without an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the plaintiff presented clear and cogent evidence that no consideration was paid in exchange for the release and because the release was not a valid contract the bank had a valid, existing mortgage against the defendant and plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. (McBRIDE and ELLIS, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a breach of contract lawsuit alleging that defendant had failed to pay rent on a commercial property. The matter proceeded to trial and the jury returned a verdict with answers to special interrogatories indicating that there was a contract between the parties but that defendant did not breach the contract. The trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial on the basis that the jury did not render a legally consistent verdict and defendant appealed. Defendant argued on appeal that the trial court erred in granting both plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial as well as plaintiffs’ motions in limine that barred defendant from presenting evidence that plaintiffs’ failed to mitigate their damages. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err and instructing that the parties be allowed to present evidence regarding plaintiffs’ reasonable efforts to mitigate their damages during the second trial. (LAMPKIN and VAN TINE, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a quiet title action against the defendants. Defendants filed a counterclaim for breach of warranty deed. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the quiet title claim and defendants filed an interlocutory appeal. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to find laches where the plaintiff timely recorded her installment contract and where the defendant did not exercise their right to declare a forfeiture. (HYMAN and C.A. WALKER, concurring)