Chicago Property Tax Rebates End Tomorrow

Many of us were caught by surprise when the second installment of the 2015 real estate tax bills arrived in the mail this past July.  Steep increases were the norm, especially for homeowners in parts of town that experienced healthy increases in property values over the past few years.  That’s the bad news.

The good news is that the City is offering many of us rebates of up to $200.  The amount can be more if you are eligible for a senior or enhanced grant.

From the City’s website:

     Eligibility:

     In order to qualify for a City of Chicago property tax rebate, homeowners must meet      all the following eligibility requirements:

  • Chicago Resident and Homeowner;
  • Received the Cook County Homeowners’ Exemption in the most recent property tax year;
  • Household adjusted gross income of $75,000 or less in 2015;
  • City of Chicago portion of property taxes increased on most recent tax bill;
  • Current on the payment of property taxes;
  • Do not owe real estate taxes on other property located in Chicago; and
  • Do not have City debt (e.g. parking tickets, overdue water bills). In cases where City debt is owed, the rebate will be applied to the debt.

For more details on the City’s “free” money, visit this link.  You can apply at any one of 26 neighborhood locations around the city.

Time is running short on this program.  However, if you are one of the many people who took this week off, here’s the perfect way to spend your Friday morning…

Happy New Year to everyone!  Hat tip to Curbed Chicago for the heads up on this program.  As far as I know, it was not very well publicized.

Checking Your Significant Other’s Email For Evidence of Cheating May Violate Federal Law

As if divorce cases weren’t bizarre and petty enough, an “innovative” divorce litigant has figured out yet another way to torture his soon-to-be former spouse.  According to an article in the ABA Journal:

“Paula Epstein, the defendant in the case, was sued by her husband, Barry Jay Epstein, the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin reports. The couple are in the process of divorcing, according to the opinion (PDF), and Paula accused Barry of “serial infidelity.” His attorney asked for proof, and her attorney produced email correspondence between Barry and several other women. According to the opinion, Barry did not know that Paula had access to his emails until they showed up in discovery. He alleges that she must have arranged for his emails to be automatically forwarded to her.”

Although the federal district court dismissed Barry’s complaint, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s decision in part and reinstated the claim against Paula.  To its credit, the Seventh Circuit seems a bit disgusted with itself for essentially choosing form over function as it pertains to enforcing the Wiretap Act, with Judge Posner stating in his concuring opinion:

“Her husband’s suit under the Federal Wiretap Act is more than a pure waste of judicial resources: It is a suit seeking a reward for concealing criminal activity.  Had the issue been raised in the litigation, I would vote to interpret the Act as being inapplicable to—and therefore failing to create a remedy for—wiretaps intended, and reasonably likely, to obtain evidence of crime, as in this case, in which the plaintiff invoked the Act in an effort to hide evidence of his adultery from his wife.”

However, the fact stands that the case will move forward against Paula back in  district court.  Regardless of the outcome, the tactic seems to have worked in terms of creating leverage for Barry in the divorce case, as Paula will have to consider potential liability in the federal case as it pertains to the remaining issues in the underling divorce.  I’m sure that is what Congress intended when it enacted the Wiretap Act.

As it stands now, if you are going to snoop on your no good cheating husband, you’d better bone up on your knowledge of the Wiretap Act.  Otherwise, you might find yourself being sued in federal court in addition to being embroiled in a messy divorce.

Credit to today’s ISBA E-Clips for pointing this story out to me.  Further credit to ABA Journal and Stephanie Francis Ward for authoring the article.

Quick Reference Guide For Informed Judicial Voting

Another election day looms in less than one week, and I know you are racking your brain trying to answer one crucial question:  What judges should I vote for on Tuesday?

The Good news is that once again, I have some cheat sheets for all of you to print and bring to the polls:

  1. Illinois State Bar Association ratings for judicial candidates.  You can see the ISBA’s ratings by county here.  This site will help if you are outside of Cook County.
  2. Chicago Bar Association has a handy pocket guide for you Chicagoans headed to the polls on Tuesday.
  3. Chicago Council of Lawyers is a non-partisian public interest bar association, and they too evaluate judges.

Finally, for those of you who really have nothing better to do, voteforjudges.org has all sorts of great information about judicial elections.  Feel free to pop over if you are somehow curious about such things.

Good luck voting!

Why Should You Hire An Attorney To Buy or Sell Your Home?

Answer: Because you do not want to risk flushing your money down the toilet.

     You have probably heard people say that you don’t really need a lawyer for a real estate transaction.  Or you may be under the impression that real estate closings are easy for lawyers, and your real estate lawyer really isn’t doing much other than collecting a check at closing.  To be honest, I hope and pray that your lawyer does not have much to do, because a smooth transaction makes the herculean task of moving a lot less stressful.  Unfortunately, most real estate transactions will involve some unexpected hiccups, and that’s when having an experienced real estate attorney will save you from suffering a potentially catastrophic loss.

     Take for example the story of military veteran Danny Shedd, whose story is told in an article published by Vice.  (click the link to read more)  The article describes how Shedd is currently being evicted from the home he purchased, because the deed he received at closing incorrectly described some swamp land somewhere in the woods rather than the property he was trying to buy for his family.  This type of mistake is exactly the type of error that your real estate lawyer can identify and deal with before you hand over your hard earned savings for unihabitable swamp land.  If you tell me that I can spend $500 to save a little over $172,000, I would ask you where I mail that check!

     The bad news is that the best result Shedd can hope for is a refund of his purchase money from the Seller.  Even worse is that it will not be cheap to arrive at that result, and now he has to find a new home for his family. probably not be cheap for him.  Had he been represented by an attorney in the transaction, the mistake would likely have been discovered before Shedd plunked down $172,425 in cash for the wrong plot of land.

    If you have questions about real estate closings, or any other real estate matter, as always, you can contact me at patrick@loftus-law.com or 773-632-8330.  To see what my clients have to say about me, please visit me at avvo.com or on my Google + page.

     Shout out to Vice for the good content.

New Illinois Law Brings Common Sense Approach To DUI And Pot

This is not about real estate.  However, some of you (wink, wink, no judgment here) should be aware of an important change in the DUI laws, which provides a more common sense approach to the issue of pot use and driving.

Until Governor Rauner signed SB 2228 into law last week, pot smokers were at risk of a DUI conviction unless all traces of THC (the intoxicating compound in pot) had left the system.  Although the intoxicating effects of pot last a few hours at most, it can take weeks for all of the THC to flush from the system.  This unreasonable standard resulted in many unneccasary arrests and convictions, often putting otherwise good people in jail and unnecessarily ruining lives.

The case of Alia Bernard is a prime example of the absurd results produced by the old law. People v. Bernard, 2014 IL App (2d) 130924.  In 2009, Bernard was involved in a fatal car accident, which occured when she rear ended a vehicle while fishing around the car for her sunglasses.  Two days prior to the accident, she had used marijuana.  Although the proscutors freely admitted that Bernard’s use of pot played absolutely no role in the accident, they charged Bernard with reckless homicide and aggravated DUI, based solely on the trace amount of THC detected in her blood after the accident.  Facing an unwinable case under the old law, Bernard entered a guilty plea to the aggravated DUI charge.  The judge threw the book at Bernard, sentencing her to seven years in jail.  But for the trace amounts of THC in her blood, the worst she could have received was a traffic ticket.  The old law made so little sense that had the driver of the car that Bernard rear ended been found with any THC in his/her blood, they would also have been charged with DUI!

The new law provides a new standard whereby a person can have up to five nanograms of THC in their blood, or ten nanograms in their saliva, before they can be charged with DUI.  As unpopular as it is, and should be, to relax DUI laws, the new law provides a more common sense approach.  Let me be clear, no one shoud be driving around whilst stoned.  However, once the concentration of THC in your blood is less than five nanograms, there is no longer any intoxication present.  No one should be convicted of DUI when they are not driving impaired.

So, for those of you who like to occassionally puff, please, for the love of God, do not drive stoned.  However, once you come down, feel free to go pick up the kids without the fear of going to prison for seven years after someone t-bones you after they run a red light.

For more, please take a look at the article from the Chicago Reader linked below.

The state’s new marijuana law sets a benchmark for driving under the influence of weed, but attorneys say it’ll be hard to enforce.

Source: New Illinois law defines ‘stoned driving’

The Tax Bills Are Here!

The 2015 Second installment real estate tax bills for Cook County have been released as of 10:00am this morning.  For Chicago residents, this bill has been highly anticipated (dreaded) since the 2015 re-assessments were announced.  As I wrote earlier this year, may of you expect to get dinged pretty hard.

To see how bad the damage is, head over to the Cook County Treasurer’s website by clicking here.  Once there, click “continue” and enter your PIN.  If you do not know your PIN, head over to the Cook County Assessor’s website here.  Click “Dont know your PIN?” and enter your address.

LIFE PRO TIP!!!

If you are an owner occupant, and you do not receive a homeowner exemption, you are paying too much tax!!!!  The property tax information on the Treasurer’s website will indicate whether you have the exemption.  If you do not receive the exemption, and you qualify, please contact me immediately!  I will help you find the forms you need to submit to save hundreds immediately, and I will not charge you!

If you have questions about real estate taxes, or any other real estate matter, as always, you can contact me at patrick@loftus-law.com or 773-632-8330.  To see what my clients have to say about me, please visit me at avvo.com or on my oh page.  Cheers!

City closes $500M redevelopment deal for Old Main Post Office

“This project will create thousands of jobs and generate new economic opportunities for residents in our neighborhoods,” Mayor Rahm Emanuel said.

Source: City closes $500M redevelopment deal for Old Main Post Office

Hat tip to the Sun Times for this article on the Old Post Office.  This is exciting news for the South and West Loop neighborhoods!