Real Estate Law

Purchasers sued sellers alleging violation of Residential Real Property Disclosure Act in failing to disclose material defects in home's foundation and plumbing system. Buyers did not waive their right to recovery based on their acceptance of an incomplete Disclosure form from sellers. Buyers presented evidence raising question of fact as to seller's knowledge at closing of a material defect in plumbing system, and as to foundation defects.(TURNER and STEIGMANN, concurring.)

(Summary corrected.) In condemnation proceeding, court properly barred testimony of landowner's appraiser, as his valuation method was improper, because it misrepresented the value of the specific land portion to be taken. Appraiser assigned uniform square-foot value to entire property, although part taken was a 10-foot-strip with only parts of lawn and driveway, but land also included single-family home. Trial court should have barred testimony of IDOT's appraiser, as appraiser failed to consider contributory value of improvements within the remainder, including house, when valuing the part taken.(HUTCHINSON and SPENCE, concurring.)

Court properly dismissed real estate buyer's suit to attempt to rescue property from loss at tax sale. Unjust enrichment is not available remedy as a written contract governed payment of taxes, and declaratory judgment claim cannot stand as contract absolved seller of responsibility for expenses related to delinquent property taxes.(HOFFMAN and CUNNINGHAM, concurring.)

Concept of inquiry notice does not apply to equitable vendor's liens. The only time, if at all, that a purchaser of a property interest who is a stranger to original transaction can be burdened with original vendee's equitable obligation for unpaid purchase price is when subsequent purchaser or mortgagee for value has actual knowledge about prior purchase to render his own purchase or mortgage tantamount to fraud.(LYTTON and SCHMIDT, concurring.)

Defendant filed Section 2-1401 petition to modify order confirming judicial sale after foreclosure, alleging that she was entitled to surplus existing from sale. Due diligence is not required under the law when the Section 2-1401 petition is in the nature of a bill of review. As foreclosure judgment contained Rule 304(a) language, it was thus a final and appealable judgment. Reimbursement of Plaintiff's postjudgment costs and advances was appropriate, as order confirming sale may also approve mortgagee's postjudgment fees and costs to extent provided for in note and mortgage.(HOLDRIDGE, concurring; O'BRIEN, dissenting.)