A.P. Properties v. Rattner
2011 IL App (2d) 110061
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- AP Properties sued Rattner and Weiss for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; amended claim sounded in unjust enrichment and was dismissed with prejudice.
- Plaintiff, a tax-sale certificate purchaser, competes in auctions and seeks tax deeds; defendants routinely purchase delinquent properties just before redemption.
- Specific actions: Gurnee property 2007 and Ingleside property 2008 purchased by defendants shortly before redemption; plaintiff had tax certificates and petitioned for tax deeds to both properties.
- Public policy includes Illinois indemnity fund for tax buyers, funded by tax buyers like plaintiff, to compensate losses from tax sales.
- Amended complaint alleged defendants exploited owners’ dire circumstances to obtain properties cheaply; trial court held no unjust enrichment and dismissed.
- Court explains tax-sale process: redemption rights exist, tax buyer’s rights are contingent; defendants’ conduct did not subvert the statutory process and is permitted under the Code.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the original tortious interference claim was properly dismissed | Plaintiff argues the original claim was valid and should not have been dismissed. | Defendants contend forfeiture bars review since amended complaint did not replead tortious interference. | Claim forfeited; only unjust enrichment issue remains for review. |
| Whether the amended unjust enrichment claim states a claim | Plaintiff contends defendants unjustly retained a benefit to plaintiff’s detriment. | Defendants allege no unjust enrichment under these facts and code provisions. | Amended complaint fails to state a claim for unjust enrichment. |
| Whether public policy favors redemption over forfeiture in these facts | Plaintiff argues conduct violates public policy by hindering redemption and benefiting defendants. | Defendants maintain their actions align with statutory process and public policy favors redemption. | Court endorses public policy favoring redemption; no unjust enrichment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boatmen’s National Bank of Belleville v. Direct Lines, Inc., 167 Ill. 2d 88 (1995) (amendments waive objections to earlier rulings when not preserved)
- Foxcroft Townhome Owners Ass’n v. Hoffman Rosner Corp., 96 Ill. 2d 150 (1983) (forfeiture general rule of preserved objections)
- Bonhomme v. St. James, 407 Ill. App. 3d 1080 (2011) (incorporation of claims in amended pleadings to avoid forfeiture)
- Marek v. O.B. Gyne Specialists II, S.C., 319 Ill. App. 3d 690 (2001) (amendment relation to original complaint and statute of limitations)
- Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. v. Pappas, 194 Ill. 2d 99 (2000) (public policy favoring redemption over forfeiture in tax-sale context)
- Zurich Insurance Co. v. Baxter International, Inc., 275 Ill. App. 3d 30 (1995) (procedural forfeiture issues where amended pleadings incorporated theories)