(Welch, D-Westchester) provides procedures and requirements for the access and control by guardians, executors, agents, and other fiduciaries of the digital assets of persons who are deceased, under a legal disability, or subject to the terms of a trust. Referred to House Rules Committee.
(Althoff, R-McHenry) amends the Mechanics Lien Act. Current law requires work to be done or materials furnished to obtain a lien within three years for residential property and five years for any other kind of property. This part of the Act sunsetted January 1, 2016, and the limitation then reverts to three years for any kind of property at that time. Senate Bill 2450 re-extends the sunset for five years from the date that this bill would be signed into law. Referred to the Senate Committee on Assignments.
(Nekritz, D-Buffalo Grove) provides that the rights of a beneficial owner may not be impaired in any way by the change of trustees if the identity of the trustee of a land trust has been changed by virtue of sale, assignment, appointment, or otherwise, but the beneficial owner or owners of the land trust remain unchanged. Provides that a change of trustees by a sale, acquisition, or appointment governed by the Corporate Fiduciaries Act is not a bar or defense to any pending court action filed by or in the name of either the previous trustee or the new trustee, regardless of whether the court action was originally filed in a representative capacity on behalf of the beneficial owner or owners. Referred to House Rules Committee.
(Modified upon denial of rehearing 2/10/16.) City entered into agreement with developer, wherein developer agreed to develop certain property as a residential planned development and to make property improvements at its own expense, and City approved development and agreed to annex property into City. Developer later filed bankruptcy.When developer's bankruptcy trust sold all remaining property to another company, the sale discharged developer's obligation to complete improvements, and underlying obligation was assumed by buyer. Buyer's successor liability was a matter of public record and statutory law, which is incorporated into every contract unless contract provides to the contrary. Surety can look to buyer to either perform buyer's obligations under Annexation Agreement or pay costs sustained by surety if it is forced to pay City due to buyer's failure to perform.(BURKE and SPENCE, concurring.)
Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-surrounding property owners' motions for summary judgment in plaintiff’s action seeking declaration that he had fee simple ownership of private road or at least had easements over three connected private roads that would give his property access to public road. Plaintiff’s claim to prescriptive easement over one private road failed, since plaintiff could not show that he or his predecessor in interest used said road under claim of right for 20 consecutive years. Also, plaintiff’s claim to ownership of second private road failed, even though he possessed quitclaim deed to said road, since seller of strip did not have any ownership interest in said strip to convey to plaintiff. Moreover, plaintiff could not establish easement of necessity when predecessor in interest sold adjoining property to third-party, since plaintiff failed to show that said severance caused his property to be without access to public road.
Plaintiff condo owners filed suit against condo association, asserting that condo association's Board's rule, limiting the amount of units that could be leased at any one time, impermissibly conflicted with the condominium declaration which granted unit owners the right to lease their units. Condominium declaration, when considered with bylaws and the Condominium Property Act, clearly intended that owners have the right to lease their units, subject only to specific limitations. Because declaration has spoken on matter of leasing, any augmentation or diminution of Plaintiffs' right to lease their unit must be accomplished through amendment to declaratiuon, not a rule promulgated by Board.(MASON and FITZGERALD SMITH, concurring.)
(Court opinion corrected 2/3/16.) Consolidated class action appeal, in which Plaintiffs allege that title companies made illegal kickback payments by splitting fee with attorneys who also served as title agents, for their referral of business to title companies in violation of Illinois Title Insurance Act and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Payments by title companies to attorney agents were not prohibited under Section 2607 of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), where attorney agents provided settlement services in return for the payment, and the reasonableness of the monetoary amount of those payments is irrelevant. Thus, Plaintiffs failed to establish a violation of Title Act and Consumer Fraud Act, claims which are both premised on violation of Section 2607. (LAVIN, concurring, PUCINSKI, dissenting.)
Court was within its discretion in denying homeowner's motion to vacate default judgment in mortgage foreclosure action. Homeowner failed to show that bank's denial of a permanent modification was contrary to HAMP guidelines, or that his request of improperly rejected so as to justify vacating the sale.(FITZGERALD SMITH and LAVIN, concurring.)
(Court opinion corrected 1/28/16.) Parties lived together, unmarried, for years. Plaintiff filed suit claiming that Defendant has been unjustly enriched by funds he contributed to purchase of a house titled solely in her name and in they lived together until she required him to move out. Court was within its discretion to impose a constructive trust to the extent of $7,000, the amount of the down payment his parents made on the house presumably as a gift to him. A trust in any greater amount was an abuse of discretion, considering that mortgage payments were made out of a joint account and that any amounts Plaintiff had deposited into that account were gifts from him to Defendant. Court erred in finding that parties were in a fiduciary relationship, as no evidence that Defendant exercised undue influence over Plaintiff or was in position of superiority over him. (HARRIS and STEIGMANN, concurring.)
(Drury, D-Highwood) amends this Article for actions for possession for unpaid condominium expenses. A unit owner may raise as defenses: (1) a material breach of any duty set forth in the Condominium Property Act, governing condominium instruments, rules and regulations, or any applicable statute or ordinance applicable to the unit owner’s possession of the condominium unit; or (2) an improper motive for bringing the action. It also bars an association from recovering any attorney’s fees and costs against a unit owner if the association is found by a court to have breached an obligation under this Article or the Condominium Property Act; or in the case of any member of the association’s board of managers, he or she is found to have breached a fiduciary duty to the unit owner or the association. Introduced and referred to House Rules Committee.