Central Mortgage Company v. Kamarauli
980 N.E.2d 745
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Mortgage of $255,000 on residential property at 167 Shadow Bend Dr, Wheeling, IL.
- Plaintiff filed foreclosure action in March 2010 for defendant default in March 2009.
- Special process server left summons and complaint with Anna Mourzaeva at the residence and mailed copies to defendants.
- Anna Mourzaeva is Kamarauli’s mother and Mourzaeva’s mother-in-law; not necessarily a resident of defendants’ household.
- Defendants argued Anna was not a household member and that mailing only one copy to both defendants failed to satisfy section 2-203 mailing requirement.
- Circuit court denied motions to quash service and to reconsider; plaintiff later obtained sale approval and possession order; defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether abode substitute service valid without a household resident | Kamarauli and Mourzaeva accepted service as family member | Anna not a member of defendants’ household; service invalid | Substitute service valid; no residence requirement for family member accepts service |
| Whether mailing a single envelope to both defendants satisfied mailing requirement | Affidavits show separate mailings to each defendant | Original affidavit shows only one envelope to both | Mailing to each defendant was shown; service upheld |
| Whether lack of explicit circuit court reasoning in orders voided service | Record demonstrates compliance with §2-203(a) | Need explicit rationale for jurisdiction | Circuit court order sufficient; de novo review confirms validity |
Key Cases Cited
- Anchor Finance Corp. v. Miller, 8 Ill. App. 2d 326 (1956) (substitute service via family member in same building acceptable)
- Fredman Bros. Furniture Co. v. Stambaugh, 50 Ill. App. 3d 595 (1977) (live-in companion can be family for abode service)
- Sanchez v. Randall, 31 Ill. App. 2d 41 (1961) (renter may be considered family for substitute service)
- Edward Hines Lumber Co. v. Smith, 29 Ill. App. 2d 35 (1961) (defendant’s household members can be considered for service)
- State Bank of Lake Zurich v. Thill, 113 Ill. 2d 294 (1986) (return of service in substitute service must prove compliance with §2-203(a))
- Nibco, Inc. v. Johnson, 98 Ill. 2d 166 (1983) (return of service in substitute service evidence; cannot be set aside by unrebutted affidavit)
- Gaffney v. Board of Trustees of the Orland Fire Protection District, 2012 IL 110012 (2012) (statutory interpretation of 2-203(a) and plain meaning)