Help With Password - InspectionNews

Joe Nernberg · #1 (**permalink**) 07-27-2007, 12:15 AM

Can someone open this and post the text please?

Court Rules Inspection Ordinance Unconstitutional
City ordered to pay two brokers their commissions plus interest for obstructing a closing in a challenge supported financially by NAR. Please note: The following link is to a member-only area of the site. Read more...
Realtor® Ass'n of West/South Suburban Chicagoland v. Calumet City

Michael Thomas · #2 (**permalink**) 07-27-2007, 04:37 AM

Looks like the issue is that the city is requiring that defects discovered during an inspection by the AHJ be corrected prior to closing, when the defects are not prohibited by sate law.

nwi.com :: Cal City plans to appeal ruling on inspections
Communities cited for obstructing property transfers :: News :: THE STAR :: HOMEWOOD
http://www.illinoisrealtor.org/Membe...NSPECTIONS.pdf

For a discussion of similar cases nationally, see the "current cases" post here:

Northwest Indiana Discussion :: View topic - Would Hammond Benefit From A Point Of Sale Ordinance?

Bruce Breedlove · #3 (**permalink**) 07-27-2007, 05:01 PM

From another source:

Cal City plans to appeal ruling on inspections

Quote:

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

A U.S. District Court judge has ordered Calumet City to pay almost $12,000 for violating a preliminary injunction during an ongoing lawsuit with a group of real estate agents.

In 2006, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Calumet City from requiring point-of-sale inspections before issuing transfer stamps for real estate sales and from ordering property deconversions -- or reducing the number of apartments in a multiunit building.

In March, the judge ruled the city violated the injunction regarding a property at 514 Forsythe Ave. and ordered Calumet City to compensate the sellers and brokers. He reaffirmed his decision in a June status hearing and ordered the city to pay $5,970 to each of the two brokerages involved.

The city told the property owner he had to deconvert his property from a multiunit building before he could get a transfer stamp for the sale, even though a judge had issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Calumet City from requiring point-of-sale inspections before issuing transfer stamps, said Tom Joseph, the government affairs director for the Main Street Organization of Realtors.

Calumet City attorney Mark Sterk said he believed the incident happened before the preliminary injunction.

"The brokers alleged that they were due a commission in connection with the sale of the property and the sale failed solely because of the city's enforcement of its point-of-sale inspection ordinance," Sterk said. "While we respectfully disagree with the court's decision, we intend to appeal that ruling.

"The Realtors claim that the cancelation of the closing was caused by the city's enforcement of the city's point-of-sale inspection ordinance. We don't know whether that's the case because the court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing, (and) merely accepted the Realtors at their word."

The Realtor Association of West-South Suburban Chicagoland, now known as the Main Street Organization of Realtors, filed suit last year against Calumet City over its point-of-sale ordinance. The real estate agents claim the city-run inspections harm sellers, especially when issuing a transfer stamp -- necessary for the transaction -- is tied to completing city-required improvements.

The June decision reaffirming that the city must pay the brokers for violating the preliminary injunction is a good development and bodes well for the larger, ongoing lawsuit, Joseph said.

"What it demonstrates is closing and property transfers can't be obstructed and there is a limitation to interfering with the private marketplace and people have a right to close on their property and sell their property," he said. "The free market process has to be able to go forward."

Jerry Peck · #4 (**permalink**) 07-27-2007, 07:22 PM

This is what the ICC codes are missing: (it's from the old South Florida Building Code - Broward County Edition)
- 105 Maintenance Of Buildings And Property
- - 105.1 Buildings:
- - - (a) The requirements contained in this Code, covering the maintenance of buildings, shall apply to all buildings and/or structures now existing or hereafter erected. All buildings and/or structures and all parts thereof shall be maintained in a safe condition, and all devices or safeguards which are required by this Code shall be maintained in good working order.
- - - (b) This Sub-section shall not be construed as permitting the removal or non-maintenance of any existing devices or safeguards unless authorized by the Building Official and/or Chief Fire Official.

With that, the city would have won hands down.

This is from the 2006 IRC:
- R102.7 Existing structures.

The legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except as is specifically covered in this code, the International Property Maintenance Code or the International Fire Code, or as is deemed necessary by the building official for the general safety and welfare of the occupants and the public.

This is less forward and offers less back up for the city, it really hinges on the parts I have underlined above.

"legal occupancy"
"existing on the date of adoption of this code"
"except as is specifically ... or as deemed necessary by the building official"

If that occupancy was not "legal", i.e., it was made into a multi-family without permits, etc., then it was not "existing on the date of the adoption of this code", and, regardless, "except as ... deemed necessary by the building official", then the city 'has the right' to demand changes.

If the facts support it (and we only have a few of the facts), the city could 'deem the structure an unsafe structure' and that would certainly throw a wrench into the ballgame.