2020 IL App (1st) 191006
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Eyal and Lee Sigler executed a $681,000 mortgage note; they missed the March 1, 2008 payment and thereafter made no further payments. Deutsche Bank sent a default/acceleration notice on May 2, 2008.
- Deutsche Bank filed four successive foreclosure suits against the Siglers: Sigler I (June 13, 2008; plaintiff named with an incorrect/nonexistent trust), Sigler II (Oct. 21, 2011), Sigler III (Feb. 8, 2012; alleged a different default date and included a later grace-period notice), and Sigler IV (Mar. 9, 2016). Several suits were voluntarily dismissed by Deutsche Bank.
- The Siglers repeatedly moved to dismiss under section 13-217 (the single-refiling rule), arguing multiple subsequent complaints were barred as refilings after voluntary dismissals. The trial court at various times denied and later reconsidered those denials.
- After the Illinois Supreme Court clarified the transactional test in First Midwest Bank v. Cobo, the trial court reconsidered and held Sigler IV was an impermissible second refiling of Sigler II and dismissed Sigler IV with prejudice.
- Deutsche Bank appealed, arguing (1) Flesner, which limits refilings to one, should be overruled, and (2) even under Flesner and the transactional test, Sigler IV did not arise from the same transaction as prior suits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this court should overrule Flesner's one-refiling rule interpretation of section 13-217 | Flesner is inconsistent with the statute's plain language and should be overturned | N/A (defendants rely on existing Flesner rule) | Appellate court cannot overrule supreme court precedent; decline to revisit Flesner |
| Whether Sigler I counts toward the single-refiling rule despite a misnamed trust plaintiff | All suits were by Deutsche Bank as trustee, so Sigler I is the same plaintiff | Sigler I named a different (and apparently nonexistent) trust; a trust is a distinct litigant | Sigler I did not share identity of parties with later suits; it is not a prior refiling for purposes of section 13-217 |
| Whether Sigler IV is barred as a second refiling of Sigler II/III under the transactional (identity of cause) test given acceleration after the 2008 default | Different default dates and varying claimed interest/costs mean different operative facts; thus refilings are distinct | After Deutsche Bank accelerated the loan in 2008 and plaintiffs never reinstated or changed the mortgage, all suits arose from the same operative facts (one indivisible cause) | Held that Deutsche Bank accelerated the note no later than its early filings; obligations merged into a single cause; Sigler IV was an impermissible second refiling |
| Whether later procedural variations (grace-period notice, later default notice, or differing interest accrual dates) create a new cause of action | Statutory notices and differing interest periods make each complaint factually different and thus distinct claims | Notices or interest accrual dates do not alter the underlying operative facts when the note was already accelerated and not reinstated | Court rejected plaintiff's distinctions; procedural differences and changing interest accruals do not avoid the single-refiling bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Flesner v. Youngs Development Co., 145 Ill. 2d 252 (Ill. 1991) (Illinois Supreme Court holding section 13-217 permits one and only one refiling)
- First Midwest Bank v. Cobo, 2018 IL 123038 (Ill. 2018) (adopts transactional test to determine identity of cause for single-refiling analysis)
- River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 184 Ill. 2d 290 (Ill. 1998) (sets out the transactional test factors for identity of cause of action)
- Thread & Gage Co. v. Kucinski, 116 Ill. App. 3d 178 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983) (discusses when acceleration causes the statute of limitations to run on entire debt)
- U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Gullotta, 899 N.E.2d 987 (Ohio 2008) (holds that acceleration that converts installments into an indivisible debt can make successive foreclosure filings claim-precluded)