Deutsche Bank National Trust v. Puma, 65 N.E.3d 899

Deutsche Bank filed a foreclosure complaint in July 2012 against David and Luz Puma, alleging default on a mortgage for 2551 W. Farwell Ave., Chicago.
Complaint attached the note, mortgage (signed by both Pumas), and an assignment to Deutsche Bank; alleged default since August 1, 2011 and unpaid balance.
Deutsche Bank sought foreclosure, sale, attorney fees, and an order granting possession to the purchaser.
Circuit court granted Deutsche Bank summary judgment and entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale (June 3, 2014); the Pumas retained possession until confirmation.
After sale to Deutsche Bank, the court confirmed the sale and entered an order awarding possession to Deutsche Bank (Nov. 10, 2015). The Pumas appealed, arguing the complaint failed to name them as parties “whose right to possess” the property was sought to be terminated under 735 ILCS 5/15-1504(a)(3)(T).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the foreclosure complaint’s failure to use the precise language of 15-1504(a)(3)(T) precluded awarding possession to purchaser in the confirmation order	Complaint substantially complied with form pleading; Pumas were named as mortgagors/owners and exhibits (mortgage/note) support termination of their possessory interest	Complaint was deficient because it did not specifically name defendants whose possessory rights were sought to be terminated; omission prevents awarding possession without separate proceedings under §15-1701 or the Detainer Act	Court held substantial compliance sufficed; naming Pumas as mortgagors/owners (and attaching mortgage) met §15-1504(a) and §15-1504(c)(12) covered parties named “elsewhere to the same effect,” so confirmation order properly awarded possession

None in the opinion with an official reporter citation (opinion primarily cites statutes and unpublished or unreported authorities).