OMBUDSPERSON MGT RECEIVERSHIP
HB3307 amends the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law to add new duties for receivers managing mortgaged residential property during foreclosure. It requires receivers to use reasonable efforts to keep the property in at least as good condition as when they took possession and to make repairs and improvements needed to comply with building, housing, and similar codes when necessary for the safety, accessibility, and habitability of residential units. The bill also clarifies that, for residential real estate leased by a receiver, tenants retain legal rights related to safety, habitability, and accessibility.
The bill creates the Residential Real Estate Ombudsperson Program to support tenants living in residential property under receivership. In counties with 50,000 or more residents, courts must establish the program; smaller counties may do so. The Ombudsperson would help facilitate communication among tenants, receivers, and the court, investigate complaints about receiver performance, enter the property with notice, speak privately with consenting tenants, make recommendations, and report to the court on the status of the property and the receivership relationship. Receivers must also provide notice of the Ombudsperson to occupants within 60 days of appointment, and the bill sets out detailed notice requirements for occupants after a receiver is appointed.
HB3307 would expand and specify receivers’ obligations under Section 15-1704 of the Code of Civil Procedure by adding an explicit duty to maintain residential property in code-compliant, safe, accessible, and habitable condition during foreclosure receiverships. It would also add new tenant-notice requirements, limit rent increases without court approval, and create a court-linked oversight and communication structure through the Residential Real Estate Ombudsperson Program. The bill would affect foreclosure receivers, tenants in receivership properties, circuit courts, and potentially municipal building departments and court staff in counties that establish the program.
The bill’s structure suggests a tenant-protection and housing-stability focus, with the stated goal of ensuring safe and habitable living conditions during receivership. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the text alone, the measure appears designed to be remedial and administrative rather than punitive, with an emphasis on communication, accountability, and continuity of housing services.
The main points of potential contention are likely to involve the added obligations and oversight imposed on receivers and courts. Receivers and foreclosure stakeholders may view the new repair, notice, reporting, and Ombudsperson requirements as increasing administrative burden, costs, and court involvement in property management. Tenant advocates, by contrast, are likely to support the bill’s stronger protections, especially the requirement to maintain habitability and the ability of the Ombudsperson to investigate complaints and recommend corrective action. Another possible issue is implementation: courts in larger counties must create the program, while smaller counties may choose to do so, which could raise questions about resources, staffing, and consistency across jurisdictions.