Real Estate Law

American Chartered Bank v. USMDS, Inc.

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Diligence of Service
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (3d) 120397
Decision Date: 
Friday, March 22, 2013
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Will Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
O'BRIEN
For service on corporation by publication, Plaintiff was required to conduct diligent inquiry in locating corporation's whereabouts. For service on Secretary of State, Plaintiff was obligated to inquire where corporation's registered agent would receive actual notice of foreclosure complaint, and was required to send notice at address where it would likely receive actual notice. As defendant presented facts challenging due inquiry as to substitute service, court should allow evidentiary hearing on due inquiry issue. (CARTER and LYTTON, concurring.)

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. McCluskey

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Civil Court
Foreclosure
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
March 27, 2013
Docket Number: 
No. 115469
District: 
2nd Dist.
This case presents question as to whether trial court properly denied defendant-property owner’s second 2-1301(e) motion to vacate prior foreclosure default judgment under circumstances where defendant had withdrawn original 2-1301(e) motion seeking stay of Sheriff’s sale in exchange for 75-day delay of said sale in order to seek modification of defendant’s mortgage with plaintiff. Appellate Court, in reversing trial court, found that trial court was not barred from considering defendant’s second section 2-1301(e) motion (that challenged affidavit filed in support of plaintiff’s foreclosure petition on grounds that affiant had not attached note or mortgage to said affidavit and had no personal knowledge about facts of case) where prior stipulation to withdraw original section 1301(e) motion made no reference to defendant’s foregoing of any right to file second section 2-1301(e) motion.

The Bank of New York v. Langman

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Mortgage Foreclosure
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (2d) 120609
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Kane Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
BURKE
Court entered orders of foreclosure of first liens, in favor of two different mortgagees, in two separate cases as to same property. The recorded pending foreclosure action by Plaintiff Bank gave Defendant Bank actual or constructive notice that Plaintiff's mortgage was superior. Plaintiff's lien takes priority over any subsequent purchaser with notice or anything to put that purchaser on inquiry. Another bank's filing of a foreclosure action naming "Unknown Owners" did not extinguish Plaintiff Bank's lien interest as against subsequent lienholders with constructive notice of adverse lien. Recording of lis pendens foreclosure places subsequent purchasers on notice. (JORGENSEN and HUDSON, concurring.)

Crown Mortgage Company v. Young

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Mortgage Foreclosure
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 122363
Decision Date: 
Monday, March 18, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.,1st Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HOFFMAN
After foreclosure, judicial sale yielded surplus of $14,000. Homeowner defendant never claimed surplus on her own, but Plaintiff company filed petition for turnover of surplus, stating that it had promised Defendant $50, as Defendant had assigned company half her interest in funds. Contract was unenforceable, as it was procedurally and substantively unconscionable, given inequality in parties' abilities to understand transaction, and large cost-price disparity. (ROCHFORD, concurring; DELORT, concurring and specially concurring.)

House Bill 2832

Topic: 
Recorder reviewing documents
(Lang, D-Skokie) Provides that a county recorder may establish a “review index” and procedures for investigating filings that would cause the recorder to reasonably believe that the filing may be fraudulent, unlawfully altered, or intended to unlawfully cloud or transfer the title of any real property. Provides for the following: (1) the filing of a notice sheet regarding a suspected fraudulent filing; (2) criteria that a recorder may rely upon to identify a filing as appropriate to be placed in the review index; (3) notification requirements of a recorder's determinations regarding a filing; (4) procedures for removal of a filing from the review index; (5) administrative review of a recorder's determination; (6) priority of filing; and (7) fees associated with filing a deed or instrument that is determined to be fraudulent. Immunizes the recorder or the recorder’s employees or agents for any omission or error under this new Section. It applies to documents only filed after the effective date. On second reading in the House.

A New Law Overturns Cypress Creek

By Joseph R. Fortunato
April
2013
Column
, Page 204
A new law puts contractors with secured liens ahead of lenders.

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Heritage Bank of Central Illinois

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Judgments
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (3d) 110706
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Tazewell Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
SCHMIDT
Revival of judgment lien, which must be done within seven years of original judgment, has no effect until lienholder files its memorandum of order of revival. Section 12-101 of Code of Civil Procedure is a statute in derogation of common law, which requires strict compliance by a judgment creditor asserting lien against a person's real property. (McDADE, concurring; LYTTON, specially concurring.)

Lindy Lu, LLC v. Illinois Central Railroad Company

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Contracts
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (3d) 120337
Decision Date: 
Friday, February 22, 2013
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Marshall Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
LYTTON
Plaintiff real estate holding company bought parcel of land adjoining one of its businesses and adjacent to Main Line railroad. Defendant Illinois Central Railroad gave quitclaim deed to parcel but retained easement for signal box and equipment. Plaintiff did not purchase title insurance. Court properly granted summary judgment, given absence of fraud or concealment as to status of title. That quitclaim deed did not convey fee simple interest does not mean Defendant breached contract or made contract void for lack of consideration. (SCHMIDT and O'BRIEN, concurring.)

House Bill 169

Topic: 
TODI tweaks
(Bradley, D-Marion) makes six changes to the recently enacted Transfer on Death Instrument to clear up title questions as follows. (1) Current law states that if a beneficiary has not accepted the TODI within six months of the owner’s death, any co-beneficiary, contingent beneficiary, legatee, heir, or personal representative of the deceased owner’s estate may file a written demand on the non-accepting beneficiary requiring the filing of an acceptance or disclaimer within 30 days. (2) House Bill 169 specifically defines the term “authorized representative” to mean “an agent under a power of attorney, a guardian, a standby guardian, a short-term or temporary guardian, an executor, an administrator, or an administrator to collect.” It was used in the TODI Act but not defined. (3) Proposal 98-5 protects any purchaser or mortgagee who acquires its title or lien from the beneficiaries of the real estate for value and without notice before commencement of any action. But the amendment does not relieve the beneficiaries of liability to the claimant under the Act. (4) Currently, a TODI may be used only for residential real estate as defined in the Residential Real Property Disclosure Act. This has caused several problems with residential cooperatives and condominiums that don’t fit with the TODI Act. House Bill 169 resolves this problem by deleting any reference to “units in residential cooperatives” and includes “common elements” as what may be passed by a TODI as it relates to a residential condominium unit. (5) The current Act doesn’t prohibit an agent from creating or revoking a TODI if properly authorized under the instrument appointing the agent, but the concept of an agent doing so conflicts with the other requirements for the execution or revocation of a TODI. House Bill 169 eliminates the power to create or revoke a TODI by an agent even if expressly authorized under the agency. (6) The current Act requires strict compliance with the signing, attestation, and acknowledgement provisions in Section 45. House Bill 169 adds the word “substantial” to this compliance requirement so that mere technical errors do not render the TODI void. Examples include if the notary public failed to include the names of the witnesses in its acknowledgement, or if the attestation clause fails to contain a provision stating the witnesses believed the owner to be of sound mind and memory.

Onewest Bank, FSB v. Hawthorne

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Mortgage Foreclosure
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (5th) 110475
Decision Date: 
Monday, February 4, 2013
District: 
5th Dist.
Division/County: 
St. Clair Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
WELCH
Court denied Plaintiff homeowner's petition for relief from judgment of foreclosure. Plaintiff failed to present newly discovery evidence to justify her failure to appear and challenge Bank's standing to foreclose. Plaintiff failed to show due diligence in pursuing her defense prior to judgment, as she presented no excuse for her failure to appear and challenge Bank's standing. (GOLDENHERSH and CHAPMAN, concurring.)