New Suit Fridays 6-12-2009
Yes, it’s a New Suit Friday once again. This week's cases should pique the curiosity of a few of our readers out there who dabble in title work, advertise ADA compliant housing or deal in accessibility design, condo associations looking to oust someone and as a special treat, even clergy members interested in ecclesiastical law.
In Hamdan v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company and Monroe Title Company, Inc., the complaint alleges that the title guaranty company issued a policy to the plaintiff for a real estate transaction based on a title search performed by the defendant title company that came up clean. It’s asserted that what the title company missed was a previous demolition action filed by the City of Chicago against the property that the plaintiff purchased. After plaintiff filed a claim with the title insurance company, it admitted that it failed to disclose the action as a possible encumbrance and admitted to a duty to defend the plaintiff, but denied any duty to indemnify the plaintiff. The title insurance company appointed counsel for the plaintiff, but plaintiff claims that because the indemnification for loss was denied by the company, a sufficient conflict of interest exists between the title insurance company and the plaintiff that plaintiff should have the right to counsel of its own choice. The action seeks a declaration that the title insurance company has the duty to indemnify plaintiff, has the right to its own counsel and seeks damages for the “vexations and unreasonable” denial of insurance coverage.
In People of the State of Illinois v. Roszak/ADC L.L.C. et al., the complaint, brought by the Attorney General’s office alleges that the developers of an Evanston high-rise condo building are accused of failing to build the accessible structure it promised. According to the complaint the developer approached the Center for Independent Futures about creating a community of individuals with disabilities at his development which helped him get permitting under an Evanston ordinance requiring a certain percentage of units be held out for sale as Affordable Dwelling Units. Several persons with disabilities purchased units in the complex. The complaint states that although the plans called for the west side of the development to have the accommodating access for those with disabilities, to date, that portion of the development has not been constructed and the accommodating access does not exist leaving no accessible route that allows the several unit owners with various disabilities to safely enter or exit the building. The AG’s office pleads actions against the building development and management companies and the architect for violations of the Environmental Barriers Act, The Illinois Accessibility Code, the Fair Housing Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act. The complaint seeks the correction of the violations, immediate compliance with the acts, fines, and the establishment of an account for a retrofitting fund for future alterations necessary to comply with the acts.
In 1400 Lake Shore Drive Condominium Asscoiate v. Annette Goggins, et al., the complaint, brought by the condo association of a building seeks to oust a unit owner. The allegations are that she has violated portions of the association’s by-laws by verbally abusing and threatening other unit owners, smoking marijuana at the front desk, brandishing a straight razor in the lobby of the building and punching the owner of a convenience store that is in the building. The unit has held meetings and assessed various fines and penalties for the behavior and is now suing for the enforcements of its rights under the by-laws including termination of the tenant’s right to occupy the unit and a judicial sale of the unit.
In Illiana Classis-Reformed Church in America v. Living Grace Church, Inc., the complaint alleges that the regional assembly of the Reformed Church in America was to acquire title in land owned by the defendant pursuant a merger agreement approved by the plaintiff and pursuant to negotiations that never came to fruition regarding a termination of the defendant’s affiliation with the Reformed Church in America (RCA). The plaintiff alleges that the laws of the Book of Church Order (BCO), the governing constitution of the RCA control the property issues in the case. Part of the dispute is that because the defendant church never requested to withdraw from the RCA in accordance with the procedures of the BCO, the defendant church is still “affiliated” with the RCA and subject to the BCO. Under the BCO the regional assembly (plaintiff) has the ability to dissolve the defendant church and take over management and ownership of the property. The complaint seeks the application of the BCO to the defendant as a matter of ecclesiastical doctrine and a determination that the regional assembly is the rightful owner of the property.
