Real Estate Law

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)

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking to recover property taxes paid on a property that was subject to condemnation proceedings. The appellate court sided with the plaintiffs; however, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed that finding, concluding that because the plaintiff enjoyed the benefits of ownership from the time the condemnation proceedings were initiated until the time the city took ownership of the property, it would be unreasonable for the plaintiffs to be relieved from having to pay property taxes during that time. (THEIS, NEVILLE, OVERSTREET, HOLDER WHITE, ROCHFORD, and O’BRIEN, concurring)