Real Estate Law

Process of condo association taking possession of condo after condo owner fails to pay assessments is a powerful remedy but is under firm statutory control. Court must confine its inquiry to issue of possession, in hearing on motion to vacate judgment of possession. Issues of condo association's duties as to lease and property manager's negligence are not germane to possession and cannot be considered in limited context of forcible entry and detainer action.(HARRIS and SIMON, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 1/24/13.) Sale price of $20,000, generated at a forced judicial sale of an undivided half-interest in a single-family home, even when compared to $120,000, which is one-half the full appraised value of the property, is not unconscionably low. Inadequacy of sale price alone is not sufficient reason to deny confirmation of judicial sale. Sale was just, as no defects in sale process were alleged, and fair sale price of a one-half interest in a single-family home must be significantly discounted from amount calculated by dividing in half value of entire property. (HOFFMAN and ROCHFORD, concurring.)

Bank filed action to foreclose $205 million loan guaranteed by Defendants. As Defendants disputed appointment of a receiver for 341 days, during which Bank incurred substantial additional legal fees, court properly entered judgment pursuant to "carve-out" provision of guaranty requiring Defendants to pay full amount due plus costs and interest if they took "any action" in connection with appointment of a receiver. An Illinois LLC has no interest that is affected when a charging order is entered on a judgment debtor's distributional interest because the party for whom order is entered is not an owner of LLC and has no authority over its affiars; thus, LLC has no interest to be protected and need not be made a party. (HARRIS and CONNORS, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 1/3/13.) Plaintiff realty company sued former tenant to collect monthly payments that former tenant had agreed to pay, in addition to rent, for building improvements. Court erred in holding that sale of property extinguished Plaintiff's standing to sue for HVAC payments under the lease. Debt claimed in Complaint matured before the property was sold, and thus debt did not pass on to the subsequent property owners. (HALL and GARCIA, concurring.)

Appellate jurisdiction does not exist to consider a challenge to an order issued during the pendency of a mortgage foreclosure action. The order confirming sale, rather than judgment of foreclosure, operates as a final and appealable order in a foreclosure case. (KILBRIDE, THOMAS, GARMAN, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

(Modified upon denial of rehearing 12/28/12.) Bank lacked standing at time of filing its foreclosure action, as MERS was identified as mortgagee, on mortgage and note attached to complaint, and assignment of interest in mortgage from MERS to Bank did not occur until several months after foreclosure action was filed. Foreclosing party must actually be in possession of its claimed interest in note when filing suit. Bank was not liable for Truth in Lending Act (TILA) violation, as assignee of loan, because alleged TILA violation was not apparent on face of loan documents. (McLAREN and ZENOFF, concurring.)

As title company did not have title to the property in question, it lacked standing to file an action to quiet title. Even though title company alleged, in its amended complaint, that it still owned the property, it alleged facts contradicting that conclusion. (QUINN and SIMON, concurring.)