So what about this urgent note from Sudler tonight regarding the Foreclosures Bill in Springfield? Was Sara’s note sensational? It was surely unbalanced. Here, let’s step back for a little perspective.
The gist of Sara’s blast is this:
Responding to the foreclosure crisis that touched the entire nation, the Condominium Property Act was changed in 2007 to provide super lien rights. These rights allowed condominium associations to recover up to 6 months of unpaid common expense attributable to the foreclosed-out owner from a future owner. With the financial institutions exempt from making this payment, the subsequent purchaser of the foreclosed property was/is on the hook for paying the 6 months.
But now the Illinois State Bar Association and Illinois Board of Realtors have put forth SB 2664. [If enacted, the law] would prohibit condominium associations from including special assessments, charge backs, and limit a condominium association’s ability to collect attorney’s fees, late fees or court costs. While attorney’s fees and court costs can be collected, the total amount that can be collected may never exceed 9 months of regular assessments.
However, the Illinois Board of Realtors paints a much different picture:
Senate Bill 2664 stops the current practice in which purchasers of distressed condominium units are stunned to discover at closing that they owe back assessments to the association. Senate Bill 2664 protects innocent owners from being put in this position and eliminates the ambiguity that is causing sales of distressed units to be impeded or delayed, often resulting in litigation or a threat of litigation.
Senate Bill 2664 creates a clear and fair formula for calculating the amount to be paid by these purchasers and gives them notice of this obligation. It clarifies and caps the total amount the purchaser may be liable for—no more than an amount equal to the unit’s unpaid regular monthly assessments for the nine-month period immediately preceding the judicial foreclosure.
Both sound pretty reasonable actually. Where we weep for the plight of attorneys, how it impacts us is the question.
Here’s a list in the public record. Each documents an ordeal that apparently involved the association.
2012-CH-35004 BANK AMERICA NA v. LAURA DOMINIAK 09/17/2012
2011-CH-32591 WELLS FARGO BANK NA v. MARILYN TZAKIS 09/16/2011
2011-CH-19778 FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE COMP v. RICHARD EVANS 06/02/2011
2010-CH-41524 REPUBLIC BANK CHICAGO v. WILLIAM PUNZIO 09/24/2010
2010-CH-05502 WELLS FARGO BANK N A v. MARYLIN TZAKIS 02/08/2010
2009-CH-33409 ONEWEST BANK v. PAUL POMPIAN 09/15/2009
2009-CH-29662 BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING v. REBECCA HOLMES 08/24/2009
2009-CH-05540 NATIONAL CITY BANK v. CAROLE HOPKINS 02/09/2009
2009-CH-02904 BANKUNITED v. JOSEPH DANON 01/23/2009
2008-CH-40474 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS v. RICHARD MACK 10/28/2008
2008-CH-18000 U S BANK NA v. JACQUELINE SMITH 05/16/2008
2008-CH-10029 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC v. REBECCA HOLMES 03/17/2008
2007-CH-28062 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC v. DEBBIE HOSS 10/03/2007
2007-CH-08240 BANK NEW YORK V. JACQUELINE SMITH 03/23/2007
2006-CH-00749 NATLCITYMORTG COMPANY v. FRED THOMAS 12/14/2006
2006-CH-20953 WELLS FARGO BANK N A v. ANTHONY YUNEZ 10/04/2006
2006-CH-09030 NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE INC V. FRED THOMAS 05/05/2006
2006-CH-06411 MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGIS v. KRISTA WATSON 03/30/2006
2005-CH-02880 CHASE HOME FINANCE v. ROBIN BUYER 02/14/2005
2004-CH-09999 WORLD SAVINGS BANK v. JACQUELINE SMITH 06/23/2004
THE POINT: Bottom line is the bottom line, i.e. what did it cost us? Ms. Rudnik should have told us how SB 2664 would make a difference. From the looks of the list, it’s obvious what would have made a difference is, if we had managed it better, law or no law.