765 ILCS 77/55
Violations and damages
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(765 ILCS 77/55)
Sec. 55. Violations and damages. If the seller fails or refuses to
provide the disclosure report prior to the conveyance of the residential
real
property, the prospective buyer shall have the right to terminate the contract. A seller
who knowingly violates or fails to perform any duty prescribed by
any provision of this Act or who discloses any information on
the Residential Real Property Disclosure Report that the seller knows to
be false shall be liable in the amount of actual damages and
court costs, and the court may award reasonable attorney's fees
incurred by the prevailing party.
(Source: P.A. 102-765, eff. 5-13-22.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case: Curtis Investment Firm, Ltd. Partnership v. Schuch
Curtis Investment Firm, Ltd. Partnership v. Schuch (2001)
“" 765 ILCS 77/55 (West 1998). The language in this provision demonstrates that the legislature intended mandatory liability in the event the seller fails to comply with the Act.”
Miller v. Bizzell (2000)
“The trial court then awarded defendants attorney fees pursuant to section 55 of the Residential Real Property Disclosure Act (Disclosure Act) (765 ILCS 77/55 (West 1994)). Plaintiffs appeal the award of attorney fees.”
Provenzale v. Forister (2001)
“765 ILCS 77/55 (West 1996). The Provenzales have alleged that they were delivered the disclosure report before entering into the contract and that the disclosure report did not disclose a material defect.”
Bauer v. Giannis (2005)
“The seller must disclose material defects of which he or she has actual knowledge but is not obligated to make any specific investigation or inquiry in order to complete the report. 765 ILCS 77/25(b), (c) (West 2002).”
Woods v. Pence (1999)
“765 ILCS 77/55 (West 1996). The court also may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.”
Kalkman v. Nedved (2013)
“765 ILCS 77/55 (West 2010). The court may also award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.”
Kroot v. Chan (2017)
“¶ 33 Section 55 of the Act provides that, if the seller of real property, such as Chan, provides a disclosure document prior to a conveyance which contains information which he knows to be false, he is liable for the actual damages sustained as a result.”
Hirsch v. Feuer (1998)
“Pursuant to 765 ILCS 77/55, Defendants have violated the Residential Real Property Disclosure Act by intentionally concealing and failing to disclose known defects in the Disclosure Report.”
Hogan v. Adams (2002)
“) 765 ILCS 77/55 (West 1998). Additionally, section 25(a)(i) of the Act (765 ILCS 77/25(a)(i) (West 1998)) states the seller is not liable for any error, inaccuracy, or omission of any information delivered pursuant to the Act where the seller had no knowledge of the error,…”
Kroot v. Chan (2018)
“765 ILCS 77/55 (West 2012). In order to recover for common-law fraud, a plaintiff is required to prove that (1) the defendant made a false statement of material fact, (2) the defendant knew that the statement was false, (3) the defendant intended to induce the plaintiff to act…”
Werderman v. Liberty Ventures, LLC (2006)
“The trial court returned a judgment in favor of defendants Re/Max and Liberty Ventures and against plaintiffs on plaintiffs’ claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Consumer Fraud Act) (815 ILCS 505/10a, 10b (West 2002)) and the Residential…”
Kroot v. Chan (2019)
“In urging reversal, the defendants argue both that (1) the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in support of their fee petition consisted of hearsay, supposition, and guess, which they contend is insufficient to support an award of attorney fees, and (2) the plaintiffs failed…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.
|