writers well as you know this case comes before the court in order appointing a receiver in a mortgage foreclosure case the principal issue in this case is the application of section fifteen dash seventeen of rugby to the illinois mortgage foreclosure act and what constitutes a good cause under that section to allow a mortgage or to remain in possession of a piece of property during the mortgage foreclosure case the facts of this case whether that complicated i or different from all of the other cases that have been cited to the court  both the the two main illinois cases as well as the several federal cases that have accepted the statute the critical facts here are the me that being that it's a thirty seven million dollar loan which is secured by a mortgage and what is essentially a vacant piece of property the buildings that are on the property have no meaningful rights there's nothing meaningful to manage and the value of the property and this was noted by judge the lloyd's is in its developmental ability it's not in that it has buildings on it that generate webs either to sustain the mortgage or for the owner or to make a profit we contend here that the value of the property is maintained and maximized by having the mortgage joy of the owner to remain in possession and that the allowing a receiver to be in possession has the been invested in the development of this property there have been architectural plans drawn there's been schematics and pictures draw enough of an entertainment district a hotel district residential district most of which would be by piece or whatever but the development did there's no hope in the foreseeable future i see foreseeable five years is somebody's going to come in and say i'd love to buy twenty second street old prairie you know the he officer right and then the interesting thing is that that's what the receiver has got his continued out is in there with the bit with the police officer doing the security they've heard of some windows they inspected the property and said oh there's  real showing by way of any evidence affidavits of or the like that there is reason to leave the more that you are in possession here we have the affidavits to show that there is has been some potential investors who have a receiver now there's also the foreclosure case but if it's only a foreclosure because that's just about money with the receiver it's also about control and without control that ties the owners hands from having getting  access to the property and it's just a state another threat that causes potential investors tenants and the like to say we're not interested in this now can i say that without the receiver it's going to happen so there's a there's a lot of other things that have to happen but but the other important feature of this is also included in the affidavit of effort and offer of proof of him what place it is that she has spent a lot of time and effort in heavy contacts with the city of chicago in terms of she's got a fifth district involves she's got results instrumentalists with the city of chicago once and will accept the receiver isn't doing any of that stuff so to the extent that there is some value in this property and says you know i'd like to buy this thing for thirty seven million dollars well you know the record doesn't reflect all of the things that are going on we don't have anything to say the same afternoon we're closing down a war that the idea of a development together by way of of drawings and sketches to show what this property can be and how it can the heads that really the value of the of the neighborhood but the the value of  finance markets becoming a little bit better this crisis and continues to talk to other investors other partners in this deal it's it's what she does every day trying to put this project together try  get the money to pay off set or put everything in the plans yes it isn't the place is that there's no there's no refinancing is about to close as i said there's there's no it's not as mean i could do that in this property so that so that's not the issue here the issue then here is if in the value of property is not going to be enhanced than any way by the presence of the receiver here because the value of the property isn't development so what difference does it make whether the receiver is a possession or the owner here the oil residue charging the fees to do the whatever services needed to be done that well take a look at who can more officially possess and measure what needs to be measured well there's that much that needs to be mayors except for the development of this property or let's talk talk about the generating rents that we might abandon him and lose that the value again is in the property it's not in what's on the property and the property is going to be there and what is the harm to the prairie if they're not a elite in the receiver in place in paris that because we don't have complete control of the property we don't have all the access would like to have would like to have free access free a goodly the same we control the property we just need the money think that was their home and it's the bank so that the people who signed it you know the people who didn't pay the bank of lost their rights their home it's a bank so they get to do that so it may make more sense economic sense i'll let the people stay there suggest and show that what you have here is the potential of hundreds of both parties by leaving the receiver in there and receiver that really has not much to do if you look at the statute and they and the but this receiver should be doing better it really makes sense in a setting like this so what we have tried to show the court this is a case where some guidelines can be set forth as to what does constitute good cause and we know doesn't have the same motivation or there's certainly a risk of the lose it so maybe not walk away from it it makes sense there and that's what the statute talks about his collection of rents maintenance hiring security guards making sure the building operate the property is protected the value of the property is protected for what it is the value of this property for what it is is essentially vacant property so we have news after judy to show that there are some circumstances that were good cause make some says we have we have come forward with some evidence that says high in the sky made yes its plans its proposals but it's stuff that's happening it's continued to your every opportunity and every advantage to try to maximize the value of the property in the interim and maximize every opportunity that the order has to achieve refin the only case where the property is essentially vacant that's a significant difference because there is a role for a receiver that's consistent with the requirements of the statute in those other cases the requirements any of the arguments made in any of those cases even if there were affidavits to support them some of them simply said we are better suited to manage without any real explanation as to why some of the tie goes to the rider in this case the receiver and we have here i think better bets high and we also have the argument that there's really no reason to have a receiver for this type not some nebulous plans that may take years to materialize if they had a commitment for refinancing and it was a couple months away in this would be back in may two thousand and nine when the receiver was appointed fork in order for closure and sale on file since october i expect that shortly the property is going to get sold and we've had a receiver since may two thousand and nine i don't see how it makes any sense at this point but to pull the receiver and put it back into possession of the bio work for what's going to be a very short period of time so it does it does impact on the app affect that there's go of well exactly bet that the insurance might not get paid but the security might not be in place yes there is red that's collected it right now i think it's ten thousand dollars a month or fifteen thousand dollars a month why should get that center fifteen thousand dollars a month why should the lender have to trust the borrower to collect the right amount of rent oh why should the lender have to trust the power to make sure that the building doesn't fall one of the buildings as a fall down into the street way you have to do is read the receiver's report and that's not a burden really when you look at the cases it's not a burden to show the at there's been mismanagement but in fact if you read the receiver's report there has been mis term one year long and we weren't in this for the long haul this was a twenty five or thirty year mortgage in which payments were being supposed to be made every month there they have long term development plans this wasn't though we were in this for the long haul off center point at least in part is owned by cal pers that's the california government pension plan and if it was your pension plan would you feel more comfortable having the power  tea i think it's called stanford management which isn't even a license to do business in illinois and which on its website looks like it's a senior citizen housing management company and what they did in maine which would be more comfortable with stanford management would  meanwhile you have a alone and the frabjous lenders are supposed to sit there and wait with a thirty seven million dollars loan in fall while they take years to develop the property i mean you can throw around this word development but you know what does that really mean this case is no different than any other than any of the other cases in the sense just because this is not a farm building the main argument seems to be that because there's a receiver it affects their right to refinance the property they can't refinance it because there's a receiver it's not enough that there's a foreclosure but the action in place but no one's going to touch this property because there's a receiver and they're not in control welfare was the standard receiver would never be a pointed in a commercial case if a receiver affects the ability of the borrower to refinance then you could never have a receiver felt was the standard that this case is no different than in the at respect and this lies into it being rehabbed in some way in the future and a receiver isn't going to do that you could make the same argument in any case the you'd have you'd never have a receiver be appointed and it's significant to note that in the dozen or that the insurance is paid that the taxes are paid that the building is secure they would have or the if there are environmental problems or other problems that these are going to be addressed and the lender shouldn't have to trust the power who they refused to accept the notion that this case is is completely different in the in the respect that this is a vacant piece of property and i all the arguments made by mr erlich would make sense if we were talking about the sears the willis tower or big apartment building where things needed to be managed in those properties that is not the case here that makes this case five different from any of the other the the the suggestions that have come through some of the other cases and some but we have about ourselves i guess a balancing test of the harms we think that there's more harm to be done by having a want to be in it for the long haul if the story that we've had to date has shown that they may rise this whole project and wait assess their best case scenario in this property is that if we default then they get the property you had to consider that we only have four months i would say that's the four months that we wouldn't otherwise have but i think it's unrealistic to say that this property is going to be sold in four months because really the quarter or rather just time to f the complaint we intend to go and then a complete that's end of february no doubt so the point will move to dismiss that that's the end of march we'll respond now we're at to late two thousand and ten before the property realistically could be sold which gives us all a bad time to continue on with the development plans and as best that we can in an unimp fashion so i think they need to put the rest some of this case is that it is a far cry from any other receiver case that this court or any of the federal courts have looked at in terms of what is good cause in two principal respects or three really is the make the the condition of the land being vacant two is we actually have some proof to support right it's beneficial to have the mortgage mortgage place with the conventions leaving town which i presume will get fixed in some way shape or form so i think i don't really really answer but i think that there's no there's no real answer at this point in time but the developers would say the olympics were it was a selling point yes the fact that the olympics are not coming doesn't mean this development doesn't have that sense of in fact maybe it's even better without the olympics pressure should