5510 Sheridan Road Condominium Association v. U.S. Bank
2017 IL App (1st) 160279
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- U.S. Bank foreclosed on the Hoffmans’ condominium and purchased the unit at a judicial sale in May 2014, receiving deed/title July 3, 2014.
- The condominium association previously obtained an order of possession against the Hoffmans in April 2013 but did not appear in the foreclosure proceeding.
- The association demanded payment of arrears (pre-sale and post-sale common expenses); U.S. Bank paid postsale charges in January 2015 (partial) and completed postsale payments by September 11, 2015.
- The association sued U.S. Bank under the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act seeking possession, unpaid presale assessments, and fees, arguing U.S. Bank’s postsale payments were untimely under 765 ILCS 605/9(g)(3) and thus did not extinguish the lien for presale expenses.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to the association; the appellate court reversed, holding U.S. Bank’s completed postsale payments extinguished the association’s lien and entering summary judgment for U.S. Bank.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does "from and after the first day of the month after the date of the judicial foreclosure sale" in 765 ILCS 605/9(g)(3) impose a strict timing deadline to extinguish presale liens? | The phrase creates a strict deadline: purchaser must pay on that day (or immediately then) or lose ability to extinguish presale lien. | The phrase only defines when purchaser becomes liable for postsale assessments; payment later still extinguishes presale lien once paid. | The phrase denotes when liability for postsale assessments begins, not a hard deadline; completed postsale payment extinguishes presale lien. |
| Did U.S. Bank extinguish the association’s lien for presale common expenses by paying postsale assessments? | Payments were untimely and thus did not extinguish the lien. | U.S. Bank’s payments (completed by Sept. 11, 2015) extinguished the lien per section 9(g)(3). | U.S. Bank’s full postsale payments extinguished the presale lien; summary judgment for U.S. Bank. |
| Can section 9(f)’s monthly-due provision be read into 9(g)(3) to impose timing? | Association: board’s due-date rule (first of month) means payments were untimely under 9(f) and thus 9(g)(3) should incorporate that timing. | U.S. Bank: 9(f) (assessment timing) is separate from 9(g) (creation/extinguishment of liens); 9(g)(3) has plain meaning and does not import 9(f). | Court: Rejected incorporation; 9(g)(3) is clear and does not contain a strict timing requirement nor reference 9(f). |
| Was the circuit court’s award of possession and damages for unpaid assessments correct? | Association prevailed below based on its timing construction. | U.S. Bank argued extinguishment by postsale payments negated association’s claims. | Appellate court reversed possession and damages award and entered summary judgment for U.S. Bank. |
Key Cases Cited
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90 (explaining de novo review of summary judgment)
- Secura Insurance Co. v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 232 Ill. 2d 209 (court must ascertain jurisdiction sua sponte)
- DeLuna v. Burciaga, 223 Ill. 2d 49 (plain statutory language controls; avoid aids when clear)
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Earth Foods, Inc., 238 Ill. 2d 455 (statutory interpretation aims to effectuate legislative intent)
- 1010 Lake Shore Ass’n v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 2015 IL 118372 (interpreting 9(g)(3): purchaser must pay beginning month after sale; payment incentive language does not create a strict deadline)