Real Estate Law

Property, adjacent to a planned improvement of intersection by county, was deeded to a trust; trust and county entered into sales agreement for strip of land in fee simple, and temporary and permanent easements. Nearby property was sold to company which obtained building permit to construct stormwater management facility. Court erred in finding company an assign of the county, as company was invited only to partake of use and enjoyment of easement, but county did not assign to company its right to use of property. Easement owner is entitled to necessary use of easement. Property owner's actions in resisting expansion of easement did not violate contract. (BURKE and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 1/19/12.) Court properly denied motion to vacate summary judgment for bank, as successor in interest to original mortgagee bank, in mortgage foreclosure action. Bank's pleadings complied with Section 5/28 of Illinois Banking Act, as they included merger documents, and were sufficient to show that bank had rights to mortgage and note pursuant to two mergers involvoling original mortgagee. (QUINN and HARRIS, concurring.)

Plaintiff bank filed mortgage foreclosure complaint, and after default and sale, court denied bank's request for personal deficiency judgment, finding that Defendant was not personally served. A personal deficiency judgment may be entered against a defendant who failed to appear in foreclosure action after abode service. "Personal service" requirement in Foreclosure Law encompasses both actual personal service upon the defendant and abode service. (HALL and KARNEZIS, concurring.)

Neighbors disputed ownership of a narrow triangle-shaped piece of driveway. Appellate Court had earlier held that Plaintiffs had acquired land not by deed but by adverse possession, and affirmed trial court's judgment in part and reversed it in part, without remand. Trial court then entered Judgment Order as to Defendant, and Default Judgment Order as to unknown owners and nonrecord claimants. Defendant appealed both Orders, but Appellate Court here upholds both Orders, as they caused Defendant no prejudice, and only echoed Appellate Court's prior holdings, and as res judicata bars Defendant from relitigating ownership of land. Default Judgment Order does not concern Defendant, and nonjoinder of certain beneficiaries does not make judgment against Defendant void. (POPE, concurring; TURNER, specially concurring.)

Homeowners in same subdivision filed suit alleging that majority of lot behind house cannot be used to build structures due to utility easement, claiming fraud and misrepresentation. Question of fact exists as to negligent misrepresentations against brokers, and as to fraud. Promissory estoppel is unavailable as parties have acknowledged existence of contracts to purchase real estate. (DONOVAN and GOLDENHERSH, concurring.)