Real Estate Law

Village filed condemnation proceeding to acquire real estate in Palatine that was being used for shopping center, to use as police and municipal facility, and paid owner $6 million for property. Owner served five-day notices on tenants, and then filed forcible entry and detainer, and pursued actions until court dismissed them as moot. Owner's conduct does not prevent it from arguing that tenant was required to comply with leases. Nonreliance clause in leases prevents tenant from establishing justifiable reliance on any alleged prior statements by owner. Owner's alleged breach in failing to make repairs to common area did not relieve tenant of rent obligation. Tenant was not entitled to share in final award of just compensation, as five-day notices terminated leases. (LAMPKIN and PALMER, concurring.)

Plaintiff development company sued buyer for defaulting on real estate purchase contract for apartment buildings, and sought payment of deposit paid by buyer. Buyer raised affirmative defense that it had not determined its eligibility for tax credits for property. Buyer failed to file counter-affidavit in response to developer's affidavit in support of motion for summary judgment. Burden of proof can shift to non-movant to offer evidence, once movant has met its initial burden of production. Developer introduced persuasive evidence that buyer's pro forma acknowledged a determination of its eligibility and that buyer had entered into negotiations for sale of tax credits. (STEIGMANN, concurring; POPE, dissenting.)

Residential developers and Village entered into recapture agreement, with purpose to reimburse developer for costs of improvements that benefitted other properties. Village and developers had conflict of interest as to litigation strategy, which extinguished any duty of indemnification. Municipal Code does not restrict municipalities from vacating property once determining that vacating of street will serve public interest, and thus Village has authority to vacate property by ordinance. Developers have waived any complaints about required dedication of outlot to Village, as they received benefits of ordinance that enabled their construction of development. (NEVILLE and MURPHY, concurring.)