Real Estate Law

After evidentiary hearing, court entered order appointing a receiver during pendency of a foreclosure action as to 40-acre horse farm. Court properly found Forest Preserve as mortgagee in possession during pendency of foreclosure proceedings.Court's finding that property was clearly agricultural in nature, and that Property was used predominantly for growing and harvesting of hay and the feeding, breeding, and management of horses, was not against manifest weight of the evidence. (McBRIDE and REYES, concurring.)

Plaqintiff sued to enforce a note and guaranty executed by Defendants in connection with purchase of a horse farm. Court entered summary judgment ot Plaintiff and entered judgment against Defendants for $8.32 million. Court denied Defendants' Section 2-1401 petition to vacate judgment. Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Defendants failed to show due diligence in presenting their defense in the underlying suit, where Defendants had actual knowledge of the intercreditor agreement no later than 8 months prior to entry of summary judgment. (McBRIDE and REYES, concurring.)

Condominium Association (HOA) created a lien against a unit, based on owners' failure to pay assessments and late fees for several years. Defendant purchased that unit at a sheriff's sale after foreclosure but did not pay his assessments either. HOA then filed complaint for forcible entry and detainer and breach of contract. Defendant's partial payment of 1 month of postforeclosure assessments, made 17 months after confirmation of sale, did not extinguish the lien. A foreclosure purchaser must pay the postforeclosure sale assessments to confirm extinguishment of the lien, which Defendant failed to do. (HUDSON and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Court properly granted summary judgment for Plaintiff in mortgage foreclosure action. Loan was subject to an adjustable interest rate. No question of fact exists as to interest rate and per diem. Affidavit was signed and sworn before a notary in Florida, and Rule 191 does not require administration of an oath. As affidavit complies with Illinois law, court properly relied on it when granting summary judgment.(DELORT and CUNNINGHAM, concurring.)

Court entered order approving sale of foreclosed property. Court properly denied Defendant's petition to vacate that order. Defendant retroactively waived her objection to jurisdiction. Defendant failed to file her petition within 60 days of first participating in a hearing without filing an appearance, or of first filing official appearance, and did not seek extension of 60-day deadline. Thus, Section 15-1505.6 of Mortgage Foreclosure Law barred her from filing her challenge to the court's personal jurisdiction over her. (HOWSE and COBBS, concurring.)

Court, in mortgage foreclosure proceeding, properly granted petition for turnover of surplus funds filed by holder of a junior mortgage. When a party seeks to establish a lien for purpose of distributing surplus proceeds, it is not required that amount of lien be proved up or adjudicated prior to distributing the proceeds. A valid junior lien may be satisfied under Illinois foreclosure law. (CUNNINGHAM and CONNORS, concurring.)

Court issued a tax deed for commercial property in Aurora to Petitioner, over objections of Respondent, who had leased one of the units at the property to Petitioner and his wife. Petitioner had no interest that would prevent issuance of tax deed to him. Lease did not obligate Petitioner to pay property taxes, and thus his status as a lessee did not prevent him from obtaining a tax deed. Petitioner submitted evidence of Respondent's anticipatory repudiation of contract to purchase, which were definite and unequivocal manifestations of its intent not to perform under the agreement.Judicial estoppel is not applicable, as Petitioner did not take factually inconsistent positions. (HUDSON and JORGENSEN, concurring.)

After bench trial, court properly entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff real estate brokerage firm on its quantum meruit claim that Defendant failed to compensate it for brokerage services it provided to Defendant in the purchase of commercial real estate. Defendant purchased off-market real estate based on information provided to him by Plaintiff's broker and for which Plaintiff was not compensated. Plaintiff's broker introduced property to Defendant and acted as his agent throughout negotiations until Defendant decided he would structure deal in a different manner through suggestions of seller, without Plaintiff's knowledge and permission.Plaintiff's recovery was limited to the reasonable amount by which trial court found Defendant was unjustly enriched at Plaintiff's expense.(McBRIDE and BURKE, concurring.)