HB3672 would create a new “Equity Fund” in the State treasury to pay “equity surplus” amounts to Illinois property owners who lose property through a recorded tax deed. The bill sets up a process for collecting money from tax sale purchasers through nonrefundable fees, depositing those amounts into the new fund, and using the fund to pay eligible former owners after an application and court review process. It also allows the State Treasurer to move excess money from the Equity Fund into the General Revenue Fund if the fund holds more than is needed for equity surplus payments.
The bill also revises several Property Tax Code provisions governing tax sales, tax deeds, and the existing indemnity fund. It changes fee amounts in counties with 3,000,000 or more inhabitants, adds new application and calculation rules for equity surplus claims, and makes conforming changes to the State Finance Act. In effect, it creates a parallel compensation mechanism for former property owners whose property is taken through tax deed proceedings, while also adjusting the financial obligations of tax lien purchasers and county treasurers in the tax sale process.
Impact
HB3672 would amend the Property Tax Code and State Finance Act to establish a new statutory fund and payment system for tax deed-related surplus claims. It would require county treasurers to collect and transmit Equity Fund payments, impose new nonrefundable fees on tax sale purchasers, and authorize courts to order payments from the fund to eligible applicants. The bill would also alter existing indemnity-fund procedures and fee schedules, especially in larger counties, and would affect tax lien purchasers, county treasurers, county collectors, and former property owners seeking compensation after a tax deed sale.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcripts or recorded votes, so there is no documented debate or formal vote history to gauge legislative sentiment. Based on the bill text, the measure appears designed to expand protections for former property owners and create a dedicated compensation source, suggesting a consumer- and homeowner-protection orientation. At the same time, the bill shifts costs onto tax sale purchasers and county administration, which may draw scrutiny from tax sale industry participants and local government officials.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the new fees imposed on tax lien purchasers, the administrative burden placed on county treasurers and collectors, and the interaction between the new Equity Fund and the existing indemnity fund. Property owners and reform advocates would likely support the surplus-payment mechanism as a fairness measure, while tax sale investors may object to higher costs and additional liability. Counties may also be concerned about the application process, reporting requirements, and the bill’s treatment of excess fund balances and fee-setting authority.