Real Estate Law

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)

Defendants entered into an agreed order with their landlord, the defendant, agreeing to terms to vacate their rental property to avoid having an eviction judgment entered. On defendant’s motion the trial court entered both the agreed order and a judgment of possession. The trial court then denied the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment and defendants appealed. The appellate court vacated the judgment of possession, finding that based on the agreement between the parties there was no legal justification for the entry of the eviction judgment. (HUTCHINSON and KENNEDY, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against defendants alleging violation of the Residential Real Property Disclosure Act, common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation after plaintiff found mold in the house he purchased from the defendants. During a bench trial, the circuit court entered a directed finding in favor of the defendants and subsequently awarded defendants the full amount of their attorney fees. Plaintiff appealed and the appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err in the entry of judgment in favor of the defendant or in the award of attorneys’ fees under the terms of the real estate contract. (SCHOSTOK and BIRKETT, concurring)