Warning: getimagesize(3076): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/vhosts/martijnstadhouders.com/httpdocs/wp-content/themes/travis/header-grid.php on line 60
Chicago Title Land Trust Agreement
In Montgomery v. Wyman (1889), 130 Iii. 17, another academic case, it was found that, although legal titles may be held by an agent, the property would still be “the property of the institution of learning” for tax-exempt purposes. In Hood v. Commonwealth Trust – Savings Bank (1941), 376 Iii. 413, the court concluded that it was necessary to look beyond bank books and certificates to designate the “real” owners of shares in an insolvent bank. 376 Fig. 413, 425-26. The Illinois Land Trust is a unique creation of the Illinois Bar, although its acceptance elsewhere has received a lot of attention. (See Arntson, The Virginia Land Trust An Overlooked Title Holding Device for Investment, Business and Estate Planning Purposes, 30 Wash. – Lee L.
Rev. 73 (1973); McKillop, Illinois Land Trust in Florida, 13 U. Fla. L. Rev. 173 (1960); How, The Illinois Land Trust and Nebraska Law, 47 Neb. L. Rev. 101 (1968); Note, Land Trusts in New York, 37 St. John`s L. Rev.
123 (1962).) Its origin is rooted in jurisprudence rather than law. (see Schumann-Heink v. Flosom (1927), 328 fig. 321; Hart v. Seymour (1893), 147 Fig. 598; Garrett, Land Trusts, 1955 U. III. L.F. 655, 656-59.) Over the years, the Land Trust has served as a useful vehicle in real estate transactions to preserve the secrecy of the property and allow a simple transmission.
Despite the recent disclosure statutes, it .B. “A Law on disclosure of beneficiaries of property managers and property owners who allegedly violated the right of existence,” Section 1 (Fig. St. 1977, chapter 80, para. 81) and “A Law on disclosure of all economic shares of real estate held in land ownership” Section 2 (Fig. See H. Kenoe, 488 Kenoe on Land Trusts (Ill. Inst. Cont`g Legal Educ.
In Forman Realty Corp. Brenza (1957), 11, fig. 2d 531, this jurisdiction was placed before the determination of final liability for property taxes. A series of complicated corporate restructurings concealed actual ownership, although at all relevant times, the City National Bank and Trust Company held ownership of the property in a country trust. As this court pointed out, the court dismissed complaints against beneficiaries and agents as agents. However, the court found that the agents in their individual capacities were the owners of Section 27a and refused to reject that defendant. In all cases, the court issued orders that found no reason to delay the appeal. We consolidated these cases and authorized a direct complaint under Rule 302, point b).
In each of these cases, a complaint was filed against the individual agent and amended to add, as a defendant, the agent as agent and the beneficiaries of the Land Trust. Prior to this complaint, the parcels had been listed on the county collector`s request on prescription and sale of criminal taxes, the Cook County Circuit Court had ordered the sale of the property and it was put up for sale. The property was not purchased and was paid for by the state. (Fig. Rev. Stat 1977, chapter 120, par. 727.) By this complaint, the State attempts to impose personal liability under paragraphs 27a and 275 of the Revenue Act of 1939 (Fig. Rev. Stat. 1977, 120, par. 508a, 756) for unpaid property taxes on the “owners” of the land in the Landtrusts.
The complaint accuses the three defendants of owning the real estate on which taxes were not paid. The state argues that every defendant is an owner of the law and is therefore liable for unpaid taxes. Together, these cases suggest a clear policy of tax status that, beyond the simple right holder, is geared towards a determination of ownership. While title may be a factor in determining ownership, it is not decisive.