M. Hedayat and Associates, P.C. Hero Banner

Articles Tagged with Illinois Supreme Court

Published on:

Seal_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_Illinois

Henderson Square Condo. Ass’n v. LAB Townhomes, LLC
Illinois Supreme Court , Case No. 2015 IL 118139
Opinion Nov. 4, 2015 – Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 2016

This case stems from the ill-fated Lincoln-Belmont-Ashland Redevelopment project featured on our Blog before. When a Condominium Association sued the developers based on failure to reveal construction defects, the Courts weighed in on whether the claims were time-barred. Untimely, the Appellate and Supreme Court broke with the Trial Court and found that a question of fact remained as to what the Plaintiff Condominium Association knew – or should have known – and when. Only after answering that question, the Court decided, could it be determined if certain claims were time barred.

Factual Background

In 2006 Defendants developed and sold unites pursuant to a contract with the City of Chicago for the mixed use Lincoln-Belmont-Ashland Redevelopment project. In 2011 Henderson Square Condominium Association sued the developers of the community, alleging: breach of implied warranty of habitability, fraud, negligence, breach of the prohibition in the Chicago Municipal Code as to the misrepresentation of material facts in marketing and selling real property, and breach of a fiduciary duty.

Trial Court

The Trial Court dismissed the Condo Association’s Complaint because it concluded that Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead the Chicago Municipal Code violation and breach of fiduciary duty and that certain of the Counts were time-barred pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/13-214 and 5/2-619.

Continue reading

Published on:

Seal_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_Illinois

Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. vs. Heritage Bank of Central IL

Docket No. 118955 Opinion Filed November 19, 2015

In this Opinion the Illinois Supreme Court comes down on the side of common sense when it comes to lienable improvements under §1 of the Illinois Mechanics Lien Act 770 ILCS 60/1. After reversing the lower Courts however, the case was sent back down to the Circuit Court to determine whether the owner of the property “knowingly permitted” improvements to be made.

Facts

In 2006 Carol and Glen Harkins (collectively, the “Harkins”) offered to buy property from Carol Shenck (“Shenck”) for the purpose of subdividing it and developing a subdivision. Burke Engineering (“Burke”) was hired by the Harkins to perform necessary prep work related to the development of the property. So while the work performed by Burke was integral to, and resulted in, improvements to the property (plat of subdivision, etc.), at the time that the work was done under a contract with Harkins, the property was still owned by Shenck. Eventually, the Harkins closed and development began according to the work done by Burke.

Heritage Bank of Central Illinois (“Heritage”) financed the purchase of the property in 2007 and held a Mortgage Lien. But thanks to the Great Recession, work stopped in 2008 and the Harkins failed to pay Burke (or anyone else). As 2008 dragged on however, Burke had still not been paid and eventually the company filed a Mechanics Lien against property – which by this time was owned by the Harkins (the “Lien”). In response, the Harkins filed Bankruptcy. This left Burke to foreclose its lien or not get paid at all.

Continue reading

Published on:

Seal_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_Illinois

Henderson Square Condo. Assoc’n v. LAB Townhomes, LLC et al.
Citation: 2015 IL 118139 Opinion Date: November 4, 2015

After LAB Townhomes, the developer of Henderson Square, made false sales claims, built shoddy units, and engaged in fraud and negligent conduct in order to sell units, the Condominium Association sued it under the Chicago Municipal Code’s prohibition on the use of material misrepresentations, as well as Illinois case and statutory law relating to breach of the implied warranty of habitability, fraud, and negligence.

Following an initial defeat in the Trial Court based on allegedly filing late, the Appellate Court and eventually the Illinois Supreme Court determined that the bad actions of the developer permitted a longer time-horizon for the Plaintiff condo owners to pursue their rights.

Continue reading

Published on:

Seal_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_Illinois

Fin. Freedom Acquisition, LLC v. Standard Bank & Trust Co.

Illinois Supreme Court, 2015 IL 117950 Opinion Date: September 24, 2015

In this case arising from a 2009 “reverse equity” mortgage, the issue was whether a Bank acting as Trustee of a trust holding property was entitled to the same relief under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) 15 U.S.C. 1601 as the actual consumer borrowers. Want to guess what happened?

Facts

OneWest sued Standard, as Trustee, to foreclose a reverse equity adjustable-rate mortgage: the typical killer loan that Banks promoted to borrowers who later found themselves buried in unsustainable debt. In a stroke of ironic genius, Standard filed a Counterclaim in the foreclosure action based on violations of TILA by OneWest.

Procedural History

The Circuit Court dismissed Standard’s Counterclaim; the decision was affirmed by the Appellate Court because Standard was deemed not to an “obligor” under TILA entitled to rescind the transaction. To this point, Illinois Courts were confirming the common-sense notion that a pro-consumer law should not be used to benefit yet another Bank.

Continue reading

Published on:

Seal_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_Illinois

Seymour vs. Collins, 2015 IL 118432

Supreme Court of Illinois, September 24, 2015

In Seymour the Illinois Supreme Court addresses whether action, or inaction, in connection with a Federal case such as a Bankruptcy, should give rise to estoppel in connection with a State cause such as personal injury. The Answer is something of a surprise.

Facts

In 2008 the Seymours filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Petition. 2 years into their Plan or Reorganization, they filed a personal injury action based on a 2010 automobile accident. In 2010 they successfully moved to modify their Plan; reducing their monthly payments because Mr. Seymour was unable to work due to the accident and the couple’s sole source of income was now workers’ compensation.

Procedural Background

Despite having moved to modify their Plan, the Seymours never officially apprised the Bankruptcy Court that their circumstances changed; nor did they amend their Bankruptcy Schedules. On that basis, the Defendants in the State Court case were able to secure summary judgment using an estoppel argument. The notion was that since the Debtors failed to advise the Bankruptcy Court of their case, they should not be permitted to proceed in State Court Continue reading

Published on:

In LaSalle Bank N.A. vs. Cypress Creek 1, LP (Edon Construction et al.), 950 N.E.2d 1109 (2011), 242 Ill.2d 231 (Feb. 25, 2011), the Illinois Supreme Court ruled on the thorny problem of how to apportion proceeds from a foreclosure sale between the mortgagee bank and mechanics lien claimants when there weren’t enough proceeds arising from the foreclosure sale to pay both in full. In other words, who gets paid and who gets the shaft according to Sec. 16 of the Illinois Mechanics Lien Act?

Holdings

Here’s what the Court decided:

Featured In