There is one specific home I remember driving by often on my way home a few years ago. It was clearly foreclosed -- the lights were never on, the yard was a shambles. Occasionally there was a sign on the door. But despite that, it looked like a beautiful house in a nice neighborhood, and I kept wondering when it would come on the market. Well, lo and behold, it eventually did come on the market. It must have been at least six months later, if not more.
Apparently, there is a new tool out there that can give you more information about when a foreclosed home might make it to market, along with other details -- address, the amount of the original mortgage and how much is still owed, an estimated price, and even details of how far along the property is in the foreclosure process (to help you figure out when it might be listed). This could be a great new font of information for all of you potential home buyers and investors out there.
Who is offering up this information? Apparently, Zillow is. As of a week ago, there were 11,000 pre-market homes listed on the site in Chicago alone. If you are in the market, or wondering about a foreclosed home you're interested in, or just plain nosy, it looks like Zillow might have some interesting information for you.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
Bank Must Have Standing to File Foreclosure!
A recent case, Deutche Bank National Trust v. Gilbert, 2012
IL App (2d) 120164 (September 25, 2012), highlights how important it is for a bank to have standing -- in this case, the bank must actually own the loan -- when filing a foreclosure suit.
In 2005, the defendant homeowner entered into a mortgage with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). At some point, he defaulted. In March 2008 the plaintiff, Deutsche Bank, filed a foreclosure action against the defendant. In August 2008, MERS assigned the mortgage to Deutsche Bank. The next month, Deutsche Bank amended its complaint and attached the assignment from MERS.
The defendant claimed that Deutsche Bank did not have standing because it did not own the mortgage when the foreclosure was filed. While the trial judge initally agreed with the defendant, upon motion for reconsideration, he sided with Deutsche Bank.
The home was foreclosed, and the defendant appealed. The appellate court found that Deutsche Bank did not have standing when the suit was filed, and therefore the foreclosure action was inherently defective. The appellate court reversed the judgment of foreclosure.
If you are a bank filing foreclosure, you must make sure that the mortgage has been properly assigned to you before filing suit. If you are a homeowner facing foreclosure, this little loophole could buy you more time!
In 2005, the defendant homeowner entered into a mortgage with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). At some point, he defaulted. In March 2008 the plaintiff, Deutsche Bank, filed a foreclosure action against the defendant. In August 2008, MERS assigned the mortgage to Deutsche Bank. The next month, Deutsche Bank amended its complaint and attached the assignment from MERS.
The defendant claimed that Deutsche Bank did not have standing because it did not own the mortgage when the foreclosure was filed. While the trial judge initally agreed with the defendant, upon motion for reconsideration, he sided with Deutsche Bank.
The home was foreclosed, and the defendant appealed. The appellate court found that Deutsche Bank did not have standing when the suit was filed, and therefore the foreclosure action was inherently defective. The appellate court reversed the judgment of foreclosure.
If you are a bank filing foreclosure, you must make sure that the mortgage has been properly assigned to you before filing suit. If you are a homeowner facing foreclosure, this little loophole could buy you more time!
Monday, October 15, 2012
More Legal Aid Funds for Distressed Homeowners and Tenants
The funds from February's $25 billion national settlement are being distributed as we speak. Back in August, $4.7 million were given towards assistance for distressed homeowners and tenants in Cook County. A few weeks back, $4.5 million were earmarked for foreclosure assistance in Winnebago County, and northern and central Illinois generallly. Shortly thereafter, $1.4 million was awarded to provide legal assistance to renters in the Chicago area.
The attorney general plans on distributing $20 million towards legal aid. As more funds become available, the organizations receiving them are hiring attorneys to assist distressed homeowners and tenants. If you are facing foreclosure, help may be just around the corner!
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Unrecorded Declaration Provides Sufficient Notice Under Illinois Condominium Property Act
A recent case, Seth v. Aqua at Lakeshore East, 2012 IL App (1st) 120438 (September 26, 2012), provides insight on how courts interpret the portion of Section 22 of the Illinois Condominium Property Act (the "Condo Act") requiring that developers present a copy of the condominium declaration to buyers purchasing new condominiums.
In 2006 and 2007, the plaintiffs in Seth signed contracts to purchase units in a new development, Aqua at Lakeshore East. The condominiums were scheduled to be delivered in December of 2010. When they signed their contracts, plaintiffs received a Property Report with the proposed condominium declaration as an exhibit. The Property Report stated that the developer had a right to modify the condominum documents in certain respects.
In September of 2009, the developer recorded the condominum declaration. It was not identical to the condominum declaration that had been previously presented to the plaintiffs. There were seven additional units, and the units had different percentage interests assigned to them.
A few months later, the plaintiffs filed suit. While their allegations were specific, the reality is that the economy had changed drastically since they initially signed their contracts, and perhaps they no longer wanted to purchase the condominiums. Whatever their motives, plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that their contracts were void because the developer did not provide them with a recorded declaration. The trial court ruled that the defendant should have provided a recorded declaration, and since it did not, the plaintiffs could rescind their contracts.
The developer appealed, citing Section 22 of the Condo Act and setting forth a number of fairly logical and practical reasons why it was not required to provide a recorded declaration before the project was complete. The appellate court stated that they would not focus on whether the developer or the trial judge intepreted the Condo Act correctly. Rather, they decided that since plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the unrecorded declaration, that was functionally equivalent to the document being recorded. The presentation of the unrecorded declaration was sufficient under Section 22 of the Condo Act.
The Condo Act has a provision for how amendments to a condominium declaration must be handled, and, as the trial court pointed out, the plaintiffs had knowledge of that too. As long as changes are consistent with the requirements of the Condo Act, the fact that the declaration was modified is insufficient to nullify the sales contracts.
In 2006 and 2007, the plaintiffs in Seth signed contracts to purchase units in a new development, Aqua at Lakeshore East. The condominiums were scheduled to be delivered in December of 2010. When they signed their contracts, plaintiffs received a Property Report with the proposed condominium declaration as an exhibit. The Property Report stated that the developer had a right to modify the condominum documents in certain respects.
In September of 2009, the developer recorded the condominum declaration. It was not identical to the condominum declaration that had been previously presented to the plaintiffs. There were seven additional units, and the units had different percentage interests assigned to them.
A few months later, the plaintiffs filed suit. While their allegations were specific, the reality is that the economy had changed drastically since they initially signed their contracts, and perhaps they no longer wanted to purchase the condominiums. Whatever their motives, plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that their contracts were void because the developer did not provide them with a recorded declaration. The trial court ruled that the defendant should have provided a recorded declaration, and since it did not, the plaintiffs could rescind their contracts.
The developer appealed, citing Section 22 of the Condo Act and setting forth a number of fairly logical and practical reasons why it was not required to provide a recorded declaration before the project was complete. The appellate court stated that they would not focus on whether the developer or the trial judge intepreted the Condo Act correctly. Rather, they decided that since plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the unrecorded declaration, that was functionally equivalent to the document being recorded. The presentation of the unrecorded declaration was sufficient under Section 22 of the Condo Act.
The Condo Act has a provision for how amendments to a condominium declaration must be handled, and, as the trial court pointed out, the plaintiffs had knowledge of that too. As long as changes are consistent with the requirements of the Condo Act, the fact that the declaration was modified is insufficient to nullify the sales contracts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
