RESTRICT COVENANT MODIFY FEE
HB1575 amends the Illinois Counties Code to revise the process for modifying and removing unlawful restrictive covenants from recorded property documents. The bill applies to covenants that are void under the Illinois Human Rights Act because they restrict conveyance, encumbrance, occupancy, or leasing on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. It authorizes a property owner or certain common-interest entities, including condominium and homeowners’ associations, to execute and file a covenant modification that strikes the unlawful language.
For association-controlled property, the bill places authority with the board, acting by majority vote, and requires the board to investigate a written request from an owner or member within 90 days. If the board does not act, the requesting owner or member may sue to compel filing and may recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs if successful. The bill also requires notice to owners or members after recording and sets out the contents and filing steps for the modification, including review by the county recorder and State’s Attorney before recording.
The bill’s impact on state law is to streamline and formalize the removal of discriminatory restrictive covenants from land records while preserving county and recorder protections. It clarifies that the recorder may not record a modification unless the State’s Attorney determines it is appropriate, and it limits county and recorder liability for the filing process. It also provides that a properly recorded modification becomes the only restriction from the original instrument that applies to the property, while leaving later-recorded lawful covenants in place. The bill further eliminates filing fees for these modifications and bars charges for copies of records needed to complete the filing.
The general sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable. The House passed it unanimously, and the Senate motion also received overwhelming support, indicating broad bipartisan agreement on removing racially and otherwise unlawfully restrictive covenants from property records. The absence of committee transcript debate suggests the measure was not especially controversial in committee or floor discussion.
The main points of contention, to the extent they exist, are procedural rather than substantive. The bill centralizes authority in association boards for common-interest communities, allows court action if a board refuses to act, and gives the State’s Attorney a gatekeeping role before recording. Those provisions balance speed and oversight, but they could raise concerns for associations about administrative burden and for property owners about delays. The fee prohibition may also matter to county recorders, though the bill offsets that by limiting liability and shifting responsibility for unauthorized filings to the person or entity that submits them.
HB1575 amends Section 3-5048 of the Counties Code to expand and clarify the statutory process for filing restrictive covenant modifications that remove unlawful discriminatory language from recorded property instruments. It affects county recorders, State’s Attorneys, property owners, and common-interest community associations by specifying who may file, how the filing is reviewed, and what documents must be included. It also removes filing fees and copy charges associated with these modifications and limits liability for counties and recorders.
The bill appears to have received very strong support. It passed the Illinois House 105-0 and later cleared a Senate motion 54-1, suggesting broad bipartisan agreement. No committee transcript was provided, but the voting history indicates the measure was viewed as a straightforward corrective to discriminatory property records rather than a controversial policy change.
The bill’s only notable friction points are procedural. It gives association boards authority to act by majority vote without a separate owner vote, which may concern some owners or members who want more direct control. It also requires State’s Attorney review before recording, which adds an oversight step that could be seen as either a safeguard or a delay. Finally, the elimination of recorder fees and copy charges may affect county offices administratively, though the bill expressly limits their liability and places responsibility for unauthorized filings on the filer.