[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-281192-105":53,"doc-detail-281192-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","vt-investment-corp-v-west-columbia-place-condominium-assn-appellate-court-opinion","V&T Investment Corp. v. West Columbia Place Condominium Ass’n - Appellate Court Opinion","","Appellate review of a condominium foreclosure purchaser’s dispute over paid assessments. V&T Investment Corporation bought a unit at a judicial foreclosure sale and later received a paid assessment letter demanding $7,803.97, which it paid under protest. The association asserted entitlement to assessments and related relief based on the Condominium Property Act, after earlier litigation against the former owner for unpaid common expenses. The trial court ruled for the association, but the appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/vt-investment-corp-v-west-columbia-place-condominium-assn-appellate-court-opinion/281192/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/vt-investment-corp-v-west-columbia-place-condominium-assn-appellate-court-opinion/281192.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Valentina","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-26","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":40},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"Why did V&T pay the assessment letter amount under protest?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"V&T paid the $7,803.97 balance demanded in the paid assessment letter under protest so it could sell the unit unencumbered.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What legal basis did the condominium association rely on?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"The association relied on section 9(g) of the Condominium Property Act to argue it was entitled to assessments and related relief tied to the unpaid arrearage and attorney-related entitlement.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What did the appellate court decide?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},281192,1789564812,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":40,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":8,"language":135,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":136,"faqs":137,"seo_title":138,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":125,"read_time":79},13056703020460,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/be000253dac470eee5d?_k=1778207105932848923","Illinois Official Reports  \nAppellate Court  \nDigitally signed by Reporter of Decisions Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document  \nDate: 2018.07.25  \n13:34:53-05'00'  \nV&T Investment Corp. v. West Columbia Place Condominium Ass’n, 2018 IL App (1st) 170436  \nAppellate Court Caption  \nDistrict & No.  \nV&T INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WEST COLUMBIA PLACE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee.  \nFirst District, Sixth Division Docket No. 1-17-0436  \nRule 23 order filed Motion to publish allowed  \nOpinion filed  \nDecision Under Review  \nJudgment  \nCounsel on Appeal  \nMarch 30, 2018  \nMay 11, 2018  \nMay 18, 2018  \nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 14-M1-138150; the Hon. Diana Rosario, Judge, presiding.  \nReversed and remanded.  \nJohn Cloutier, ofCloutier Law Group, of Chicago, for appellant.  \nJohn G. Powers and Andrew A. Girard, of Girard Law Group, P.C., of Chicago, for appellee.  \nPanel JUSTICE CONNORS delivered the judgment of the court, with  \nopinion.  \nJustices Cunningham and Delort concurred in the judgment and opinion.  \nOPINION  \n¶ 1 Plaintiff, V&T Investment Corporation (V&T), a real estate investment company, was the  \nforeclosure sale purchaser of the subject condominium unit located at 1637 West Columbia Avenue in Chicago. Defendant, West Columbia Condominium Association (West Columbia), is the agency in charge of maintaining and administering the common elements of the condominium building, as well as enforcing the covenants and restrictions of the association and collecting and disbursing its assessments. Several months following the foreclosure sale of the subject unit, V&T requested from West Columbia a paid assessment letter. West Columbia issued a paid assessment letter, stating that $7803.97 was due and owing on the account. V&T paid the total amount under protest. V&T then filed a complaint in assumpsit. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied both motions, but found that section 9(g)(4) of the Condominium Property Act (Act) (765 ILCS 605/9(g)(4) (West 2012)) would apply to the matter at hand. The case then proceeded to trial, where the trial court found in favor of West Columbia. V&T now appeals. For the following reasons, we reverse andremand.  \n¶ 2 BACKGROUND  \n¶ 3 Both parties state in their respective appellate briefs that the facts of this case are not  \ncontested. Indicative of this is the bystander’s report, which contains an agreed-upon statement of what took place at trial and the trial exhibits deemed necessary for this appeal. However, before we discuss the testimony and evidence presented at trial, a review of the facts leading up to the trial is necessary.  \n¶ 4 On November 12, 2009, West Columbia filed an action against Richard Dresmann, one of  \nits unit owners, based on his failure to pay his share of the common expenses. Thereafter, the unit became subject to a foreclosure action. On October 16, 2013, V&T purchased the subject condominium unit at a judicial foreclosure sale. The sale was confirmed by court order on December 16, 2013, and the deed was issued to V&T on December 31, 2013. On February 6, 2014, V&T tendered its first assessment payments to the association for the months of January and February 2014. In June, V&T was preparing to sell the property, so it requested a paid assessment letter. On June 19, 2014, West Columbia’s property manager issued a paid assessment letter to V&T, advising it that a balance of $7803.97 was due and owing. V&T paid the amount under protest so that it could sell the unit unencumbered, but subsequently filed the present action against West Columbia on July 22, 2014, seeking a judgment in the amount of $7803.97.  \n¶ 5 In its complaint in assumpsit, V&T argued that it became responsible for assessments  \nbeginning in January 2014 and that it paid all the assessments that became due thereafter. V&T further argued that it was not responsible for any assessments left","cbCaiehaeeTJ8PcX","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiehaeeTJ8PcX","pdf",412454,"English","# Background\n# Parties’ Positions\n## Summary Judgment Proceedings\n# Trial Outcome and Appeal\n## Appellate Disposition","[{\"question\":\"Why did V\\u0026T pay the assessment letter amount under protest?\",\"answer\":\"V\\u0026T paid the $7,803.97 balance demanded in the paid assessment letter under protest so it could sell the unit unencumbered.\"},{\"question\":\"What legal basis did the condominium association rely on?\",\"answer\":\"The association relied on section 9(g) of the Condominium Property Act to argue it was entitled to assessments and related relief tied to the unpaid arrearage and attorney-related entitlement.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the appellate court decide?\",\"answer\":\"The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.\"}]","V&T Investment Corp. v. West Columbia Place Condominium Ass’n - Appellate Court Opinion | PDF"]