Real Estate Law

Appeal from a partition action. The subject property was sold at a judicial sale and the buyer sought reimbursement from previous owners for payment he made to satisfy a tax lien on the property. The circuit court denied the request. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court properly applied the doctrine of caveat emptor to the claim noting that the buyer, as a purchaser at a judicial sale, was chargeable with notice of the lien and that there was no fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake related to the purchase. (MIKVA and ODEN JOHNSON, concurring)

In a case involving the Condominium Property Act, the court considered whether section 22.1 of the Act provided an implied cause of action in favor of a condominium unit seller against a property manager, as agent of a condominium association or board of directors, based on allegations that the property manager charged excessive fees for the production of information required to be disclosed to a prospective buyer under the Act. The supreme court answered the question in the negative finding that section 22.1 did not create an implied private right of action by condominium unit sellers. (THEIS, ANNE M. BURKE, NEVILLE, OVERSTREET, and HOLDER WHITE, concurring and MICHAEL J. BURKE, specially concurring)

Petitioner filed petitions for sales in error under section 21-310(a)(5) of the Property Tax Code, contending that the Cook County Treasurer and Collector made errors relating to two properties on the delinquency list that were sold to the petitioner. The trial court granted the petitions and the respondent appealed asserting that no error occurred. The appellate court agreed and reversed, finding that including the classifications of the properties from two years prior to the sale on the property sales list was not an error and could not serve as a basis for finding a sale in error. (CUNNINGHAM and DELORT, concurring)

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)