Real Estate Law

In a foreclosure proceeding the debtors defaulted on their residential mortgage and after several unsuccessful attempts at personal service were served via publication. The property was ultimately sold in a judicial sale to the bank and then by the bank to a third party. Subsequently the debtors filed bankruptcy and filed a petition to quash service of process of the foreclosure complaint. After additional proceedings in the trial and appellate courts the trial court dismissed the petition to quash as being barred by laches and the debtors appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the defense of laches precluded the debtors’ sufficiency of service claim. (HETTEL and ALBRECHT, concurring)

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against defendants alleging breach of contract relating to a contract for the sale of a gas station property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court properly entered summary judgment for the plaintiffs and that the trial court did not err when it ordered recission of the contract as a remedy for defendant’s breach. (HYMAN and C.A. WALKER, concurring)

Petitioner, a tax purchaser of property, appealed from a trial court order denying petitioner’s petition for a tax deed after the property owner objected on strict compliance arguments. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court properly interpreted section 21-385 of the Property Tax Code when it upheld respondent’s objection based on a failure of the petitioner to obtain leave of court for an extension of the redemption period. The appellate court also found that the trial court correctly upheld objection premised on a failure to obtain diligent service on an interested party. (FITZGERALD SMITH and COGHLAN, concurring)

Petitioners purchased delinquent taxes on properties. The homeowners subsequently pursued bankruptcy relief under Chapter 13 and petitioners were granted sale-in-error orders under the Property Tax Code. In consolidated appeals, respondent, the Will County Clerk, appealed from a trial court order compelling the respondent to comply with the sale-in-error orders by refunding the petitioners’ petition costs. On appeal the respondent argued that he was not required to refund the petition costs because the petition costs were not posted to the tax judgment, sale, redemption, and forfeiture record due to the property owners’ bankruptcies. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed. (PETERSON and ALBRECHT, concurring)