Real Estate Law

Petitioner appealed from a trial court judgment in favor of the defendant in a case involving the sale of delinquent property taxes, arguing that the trial court erred when it denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the defendant’s affirmative defense of ratification, that the trial court improperly denied plaintiff’s allegation that the tax deed was void, and that the trial court erred when it did not order that the tax deed be vacated. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err when it denied the motion to dismiss the affirmative defense of ratification and that the trial court did not err in finding in favor of the defendant because the tax deed was not void. (MIKVA and ODEN JOHNSON, concurring)

Appeal arising out of respondent’s petition pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside a tax deed issued to the petitioner. Respondent argued on appeal that the petitioner failed to provide the requisite proof of service in compliance with the Property Tax Code for issuance of a tax deed. While the case was on appeal an unrelated third party contracted to purchase the property and the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that it did not have the ability to grant the relief requested by the respondent. (REYES and BURKE, concurring)

Appeal arising out of respondent’s petition pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside a tax deed issued to the petitioner. Respondent argued on appeal that the petitioner failed to provide the requisite proof of service in compliance with the Property Tax Code for issuance of a tax deed. While the case was on appeal an unrelated third party contracted to purchase the property and the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that it did not have the ability to grant the relief requested by the respondent. (REYES and BURKE, concurring)

Petitioner appealed from a circuit court order granting the respondent’s motion to vacate the trial court’s prior order directing the county clerk to issue a tax deed to the petitioner. The question on appeal was whether the trial court erred when it determined that the petitioner did not properly publish notice under section 22-20 of the Property Tax Code. The appellate court reversed, finding that notice was proper where the petitioner followed the statutory process for publication in “some newspaper in the county” where there was no newspaper in the municipality where the subject property was located. (HOLDRIDGE and PETERSON, concurring)

Interlocutory appeal in a foreclosure matter involving an order entered by the trial court that imposed a constructive trust in favor of the plaintiff over a share of a mortgage note. Defendant argued that the appellate court had jurisdiction under SCR 307. The appellate court dismissed, finding that it lacked jurisdiction explaining that it would not upset the well-settled rule regarding foreclosure orders and that an interlocutory appeal was not appropriate where any inequity in the temporary order could be addressed by the trial court before issuing a final order. (C.A. WALKER and TAILOR, concurring)

Appeal of a mortgage foreclosure action involving a deceased mortgagor. The administrator of the estate and one of the heirs filed an affirmative defense alleging that the mortgagor was mentally incompetent to execute the mortgage documents and the circuit court struck the affirmative defense. Defendants appealed from that order as well as the order of foreclosure and sale and the order approving the judicial sale of the property. The appellate court reversed the order striking the affirmative defense, vacated the orders of foreclosure and sale and approving the judicial sale of the property by finding that the trial court erred in striking the properly pleaded affirmative defense and that this denied the defendants a fair opportunity to properly frame their defense of incapacity. (MITCHELL and LYLE, concurring)

Defendant appealed from a circuit court order confirming the sale of her residence pursuant to a foreclosure. Defendant argued on appeal that the circuit court committed several errors relating to the sale, including that the circuit court erred in confirming the sale of the property despite learning that defendant did not receive a loss mitigation denial letter on her loan modification application as is required by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, that defendant’s loan modification application was not properly processed by the plaintiff, and where the evidence showed that plaintiff neglected numerous attempts by plaintiff to modify her loan and to end her delinquency. The appellate court affirmed, finding that defendant did not timely raise her arguments and that they were not supported by the record. (C.A. WALKER and TAILOR, concurring)