Taxes and taxes and taxes

Many folks will be seeing the first installment Cook County real property tax bills showing up in their mailbox shortly. This year, the County is looking for 55% of last year's full year bill. Then, when they raise your taxes in the fall, it will not seem like such a shock. Thanks for that Mr. Stroger.

In addition, the Assessor has implemented a bit of a shell game for reassessments. Beginning in 2009, the County has adjusted the formula used to arrive at an assessed value. Generally, the county has reduced the number of property classes and reduced the percent of fair market value for the classes to arrive at an assessed value. This can be confusing because a mere review of the assessor’s raw information comparing assessed values for 2008 to 2009 (or thereafter) will not be effective to adequately assess the change in assessed value.

To really have an “apples to apples” comparison of the two amounts, it is necessary to “back out” the figures to the assessor’s fair market value. A truly detailed review of the situation would compare the client’s increase to the median increase in their township.

Finally, residents in the north and northwest suburbs will be receiving their reassessment notices shortly. Be on the lookout and be aware of the time limits to appeal these taxes.

New Procedure for Evictions

Effective January 25, 2010, the Circuit Court of Cook County is now requiring all new municipal law lawsuits must be filed along with a civil cover sheet. The sheet is available on the Clerk of the Circuit Court's website. The form is number CCM 0520.

In addition, beginning on February 1, 2010, the Sheriff's office will charge $10 for each return of service computer printout requested.

Horizon Realty and the Twitter case

Wow. PR nightmare. I do not know the people at Horizon Realty, but they really have dug a hole over their comment that "We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization" in response to the twitter comments of former tenant Amanda Bonnen. Clarifying their position that the comment was "tongue in cheek" in a written statement later in the day, Horizon also indicated that they are embroiled in a CRLTO dispute with their former tenant. I would hate to be the defendant in that case if the Plaintiff tenant was able to get the case to a jury trial.

What interest rate should a Chicago landlord use? That depends!

There is a new twist on security deposit interest this year. The Section 5-12-080 of the CRLTO requires Chicago landlords with rentals covered by the ordinance to pay interest on security deposits at the rate set by the City (the same applies to Evanston). That rate, for 2009, is 0.12%.

In addition, the State of Illinois also has a law that applies to interest. The Illinois Security Deposit Interest Act is applicable to all landlords of residential real property containing twenty five (25) or more units in a single building or a complex of contiguous parcels. That interest rate, for 2009, is 0.25%.

As a result, a Chicago (or Evanston) landlord, covered by the Illinois Security Deposit Interest Act (ie. one with 25 or more units) must actually pay the State of Illinois rate rather than the Chicago rate! The penalty for violation of the ISDIA is a bit different from the Chicago ordinance, but it is a penalty nonetheless. Don't get caught with this mistake in 2009!

Be careful how you sign that!

Oftentimes, clients or potential clients bring me a contract or other document after they have signed it. Sometimes, by then, it is too late for me to help the client get out of a jam. I was recently shown a document where a client signed a contract, believing his signature to be on behalf of his corporation, that was signed individually by the client. That is, the client thought he was obligating his company under a contract, but did not sign the document properly and thus, obligated himself personally. As a result, all of the benefits of the typical corporate liability shield are now gone.

How should someone go about signing a contract on behalf of their corporation? Like this:

ABC Widgets, Inc.
(signature)
by: (typed or printed name of person signing above)
its: (officer position of person signing)

Now, the world is on notice that a corporation is on the hook and not the person, individually, who signed the contract. This is part of the "corporate formalities" that are required to take advantage of the corporate liability shield. By signing as suggested, it is clear to the other party and outside third parties that a corporation is on the hook - not the signer. Anytime that all of the elements of a corporate signature are missing (ie. corporation name, signed by officer, position of officer), it is possible that an opposing party could go after the personal assets of the signer - not good!

Similarly, if you wish to obligate another party, make sure you are clear who the other party is. Is it a corporation? an individual? a partnership? The type of entity will make a major difference when it comes time to seek a remedy for breach, but that's another story.