Real Estate Law

Petitioner filed petitions for sales in error for two properties under section 21-310(a)(5) of the Property Tax Code, contending that the assessor incorrectly assessed the two properties. The circuit court granted both petitions and the respondent appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that errors in whether the two subject properties had garages were errors that warranted a sale in error under section 21-310(a)(5). (CUNNINGHAM and DELORT, concurring)

At issue on appeal was whether a title company’s refusal to defend and indemnify homeowners against an easement claim in a chancy action was a breach of the title company’s contractual duty to defend. The appellate court held that the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the title company on the breach of contract and fraud claims and properly dismissed an additional count in the complaint for being barred by the two-year statute of limitations governing claims for legal malpractice. The appellate court also concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s requests for additional discovery. (HOFFMAN and ROCHFORD, concurring)

Plaintiff sued defendants for foreclosure of a judgment lien against real property that the defendants owned in joint tenancy. During the lawsuit one of the defendants died. The parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the decedent’s interest in the property was extinguished on his death. The trial court held that it did and, because the underlying judgment that was the subject of the lien was solely against the decedent, that the plaintiff could no longer foreclose on the judgment lien against the property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants and the appellate court affirmed. (JORGENSEN and SCHOSTOK, concurring)

Defendant rented property from plaintiff to operate a daycare center, but stopped paying rent after the Covid-19 pandemic forced it to temporarily cease operations. Defendant argued that the pandemic constituted a “casualty” under the terms of the lease. Plaintiff filed a complaint for eviction and for use and occupancy payments. The trial court granted plaintff’s motion for use and occupancy payments and held defendant in indirect civil contempt when the payments were not made. Defendant appealed arguing that the trial court erred because plaintiffs did not have standing and that the trial court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed, but vacated the contempt and sanction order finding that defendant acted in good faith to obtain appellate review. (PUCINSKI and COGHLAN, concurring)