Glenview State Bank v. Shyman
Appellate Court of Illinois
146 Ill.App.3d 136, 100 Ill.Dec. 13, 496 N.E.2d 1078 (1986)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Glenview State Bank (Glenview) (plaintiff) held two mortgages on a development owned by Lakeshore Terrace, Inc. (Lakeshore). The loans giving rise to the mortgages were for construction of condominiums on the development. The mortgages were recorded on April 20, 1981, and August 31, 1981, respectively. In February 1981, Leon Shyman (defendant) signed an agreement to purchase an unbuilt condominium, Unit F. The contract contained a rider stating that if the unit was transferred before it was substantially constructed, the title would be subject to Glenview’s construction mortgage. Additionally, Shyman and Lakeshore orally agreed that if Unit A, which was tentatively under agreement at the time, became available, Shyman could have Unit A. Soon after he signed his agreement, Unit A, which was still uncompleted, became available and was conveyed to Shyman. The deed was not recorded until November 18, 1982. At the time Glenview and Lakeshore signed the mortgages, Glenview had knowledge that Lakeshore presold certain units, but did not have knowledge of any purchase of Unit A. The contracts for the other presold units all contained the same rider as Shyman’s contract for Unit F. Glenview foreclosed on the mortgages. Shyman claimed that Glenview had inquiry notice of his interest in Unit A. The trial court agreed and found in favor of Shyman. Glenview appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jiganti, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.