Bankunited v. Velcich, 26 N.E.3d 408

BankUnited filed a mortgage foreclosure against Dino Velcich based on a note secured by 2707 W. Medill Ave., Chicago; process servers repeatedly attempted in-person service at multiple Chicago addresses in 2011–2012.
Firefly Legal process servers (McMaster, Stosur, Baker) attested to 14 attempts at five addresses (including 4218 W. Thorndale and 2707 W. Medill); affidavits noted reasons for nonservice (no name on mailbox, residents unaware, alleged landlord status, house-sitter comment).
After unsuccessful personal service, BankUnited filed an affidavit for service by publication supported by Michelle Bibeau’s affidavit describing database and records searches (social security, DMV, voter registration, property tax, corrections, death masterfile, etc.).
Notice by publication ran in July–August 2012; default judgment, foreclosure, and confirmation of sale followed; after confirmation defendant appeared and filed an emergency motion to quash service, which the trial court denied.
Defendant argued the affidavits were legally insufficient (passive voice, lacked particularity, did not identify who attempted service) and that plaintiff knew his residence (4218 W. Thorndale) but failed to state it in the publication affidavit.

Issue	BankUnited's Argument	Velcich's Argument	Held
Were the attempted-service affidavits sufficient under 735 ILCS 5/2-206 and Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 7.3 (personal knowledge and particularity)?	Affidavits identify the affiants, are sworn and notarized, and set out dates/times/addresses and reasons for nonservice.	Affidavits use passive voice, fail to identify the person(s) who attempted service, and lack particularized actions.	Affidavits were sufficient: they named affiants, specified actions, dates, times, reasons, and satisfied statute and local rule.
Did the affidavit for service by publication falsely state defendant’s residence was unknown when plaintiff allegedly knew he lived at 4218 W. Thorndale?	Plaintiff lacked evidence of a known residence; process-server statements and database results showed defendant’s residence could not be ascertained.	Plaintiff knew Velcich lived at 4218 W. Thorndale (citing McMaster’s contact with a niece) and thus should have stated that address rather than asserting residence unknown.	Court found no affirmative knowledge of residence; McMaster’s affidavit did not clearly state Velcich lived at Thorndale and other affidavits showed uncertainty — publishing as to unknown residence complied with statute.

State Bank of Lake Zurich v. Thill, 113 Ill. 2d 294 (discusses resolution of factual disputes on service and due diligence)
BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Mitchell, 2014 Ill. 116311 (addresses personal jurisdiction and review standards)
In re Marriage of Verdung, 126 Ill. 2d 542 (judgment rendered without jurisdiction is void)
Bank of New York v. Unknown Heirs & Legatees, 369 Ill. App. 3d 472 (statutory prerequisites for service by publication require honest, well-directed inquiry)
Midstate Siding & Window Co. v. Rogers, 204 Ill. 2d 314 (appellant must present sufficient record on appeal; incomplete records are construed against appellant)
Smolinski v. Vojta, 363 Ill. App. 3d 752 (where record is incomplete, reviewing court must presume trial court acted correctly)