case the court dealt with the issue of equitable from both and the key point is that equitable conversion hatches at the time contract with the sun so if i buy a house off of you the moment we sit down and i sign the agreement for be equitable conversion is applied i am the owner of that property what is the event nor well in this particular case in other cases which i will cite to the  relate wishes the position of tired life savings case the supreme court says equitable conversion is the treatment of land as personal to you personally as land under certain circumstances the owner of the land upon execution of the purchase the next case is people the state of illinois versus chicago title impress company i cited that case in my brief in this situation they were looking at a land trust you have the trustee who holds title to the line and then you have a beneficiary of that land trust who is actually in control then again that's important to note in life savings and loan verses bryan the equitable conversion theory the vendee is the one that has control use and enjoyment of the land in the same situation holds true under a land for  situation in that case they said the same thing that the owner of the land trust the simply holding title and that the beneficiary is the owner interesting to note in that case that the trust agreement was not recorded and thereby made a matter of record the court basically just brushed that off and said so it's not important because i know versus rose well in that situation they were dealing with again agreement for b there was an issue of whether or not the failure to be entered in agreement for be could be considered an owner and or we took a judgment but we took a judgment for the unpaid balance of the contract price and did not take a judgment for possession there by placing ourselves back in the possession of that pro pursuant to that judgment they still have ownership and possession of that real estate we had a money judgment very analogous to a situation where i look back and i've got a mortgage can choose to sue him on the no and let him keep the real estate same situations we have here to prejudge the judgment or the money on the note i did not read gave his action that proper was trying to cloak himself as let me back up the individual involved in that case try to use the situation that he was a contract venti to better himself better situation in that execution of the installment contract the doctrine will not be applied if the contract of sale is not enforceable enforceable because of the condition preceding the occurrence of which is not covered by the party to the contract is unfulfilled or if the party who claims the benefit of the doctrine of effable conversion is in breach of that time track through his own failure to perform their equitable conversion does not apply and yet nothing that brings me to my question the fact that there was the fault here doesn't that alter their rights and so are you saying that since the act of conversion does not occur because the breach your client has the right to choose whether or not to take title back or is an automatic that a neck no longer have that i don't think it's automatic i see has the option like a memorandums and give them to the contract fires and if they choose to pay a recording fee that's fine but you've got a situation where my clients are tax purchase my plan is a tax purpose purchase a certificate he reduces some of those deed when he sells those properties in most cases his profit margin is razor thin so he doesn't have the money to just make sure when he sells it to record a memorandum in every case possession rex's profit margin of the parties and that's why your client can go in and see either you know to recover the costs the balance or in addition to that recover the property but just because your client doesn't seek to recover the robinson he's a court first of all what's really at issue issue here is sure yes who are we going to require to reimburse the city in this case at decatur for its cost to demolish a dangerous and say structure and we're almost dealing with as a game of hot potato these are properties that are sliding across a balance sheet from as liabilities and yet it is that problem to the legislature sought to address in the acting section eleven dash thirty one day while authorizing cities to seek to recover costs of demolition from the owner or owners of these distressed properties just as turner like to respond to a question that you posed to helen and that is whether there's a  case that says that this statute can be interpreted to allow the city to recover from both ben dor vandy i also could not find a case directly on point but i did find chicago v madaline and that is a case where both ben dor and bendy were tried for building code violations in the court held that the vendor or under a contract for deed in that case was an owner  is that the general assembly intended to power the courts with broad discretion to determine ownership and responsibility for  where the trustee has the shuras of ownership and that the trustee legal title and may have the exclusive authority to take action with i think over that case is it haste that arises before the changes in the demolition statute that really crystallize section but it appears to me that initially it was anticipated that municipalities would have a remedy by foreclosing their lane of demolition which was given a priority  n addressing your question directly under the mechanics lein act it basically requires that before i can foreclose my mechanic's lien and recover the costs of my services from the value of the property to which i gather i have to give everybody notice because in effect what i'm doing is i'm defeating other secured creditors rights to do the same and  arsenal of property to which mechanic slain attack attaches is an oh oh i think there's an attempt to read it broadly but again i think the attempt to read broadly in that context is an attempt to reach broadly the notice judgment owners i did that there are some other cases we know from around vs city of chicago that the holder of a naked vendor's lien where there has been a deed conveying the property is not only can but then we also know under the holding of mason versus rosewell that at least for the revenue acts in dentity fund for  bona fide purchasers in good faith or properties tax sales the contract purchaser is considered an owner under that act we also know that  court raised some concern with the doctrine of equitable conversion as applied in this case in my thinking the doctrine of equitable retains a lien against the value of the property for small remaining portion of the purchase price it is different at the other end of the of the timeline of the of the dangerous and unsafe condition because that well for a lot of reasons but so they're getting into the timing of who and when is is is is  so as a result there's no question that the van door each other each of those contracts had not only contractual rights to accelerate payments to regain possession to or a mixture of the above but also ahead of common law rights of recovery against them d s for for example for waste of the pro just legal title but a combination of them and in that it's kind of becoming i think in the cases today more a discussion of who has control over the property and in that respect i think into an analysis of the contract at issue in both of these cases is is extremely important thank you first of all neither contract was terminated either writing or by a court or name they recorded this claim and then so you know to come in and say well you know we have forcible entry in detainer but we left open the issue really that's a situation where equitable conversion is sort of being forced on the vendee he's entered into this contract you made and so now you own it even though you're in breach or failure to perform a contract i don't think you can really have it both ways the contracts don't specify bentleys rights to possession there's case law that they make it clear that title isn't going to vest and they're not going to get a deed until they are fully paid the purchase price that so i suppose not unusual but interestingly they derelict where the problems are really more related to the failure of the entity in possession to take care of the property lack of garbage s include the record owner as someone responsible for it because we're talking about basically destroying a piece of property it could be it could be serving as collateral on a note it could presumably is isn't tied up to some consideration or the vendor is consider that as an asset and so it is it is significant to hold the vendor or responsible for the care of property particularly in these and stages in summary i think i simply like to say that  establish responsibility for the city's demolition costs and at that stage in the process it is the ballenger is required put up or show up or shut up  the city does not dispute that on the pleadings there are material issues of disputed fact joint but once you once you proceed to the next level because of the proofs which you