DG Enterprises v. Cornelius
2015 IL 118975
| Ill. | 2016Background
- DG Enterprises purchased delinquent 2007 taxes on 716 Henderson Ave., Joliet, and sought a tax deed after the redemption period expired.
- Statutory scheme: Take Notice I (post-sale) and Take Notice II (pre-deed) must be completed in statutory form; certified-mail notices and newspaper publication are required by the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/22–5, 22–10, 22–15, 22–20, 22–25).
- Petitioner delivered required notices but omitted the county clerk’s address and phone number on the Take Notice forms; certified mailings to the owner were returned unclaimed despite multiple attempts, and a process server made 11 personal-service attempts.
- Circuit court granted petitioner a tax-deed order after no one appeared at the hearing; the owner later moved under 2–1401 to vacate the deed, arguing statutory notice defects and a due-process violation.
- The appellate court vacated the tax deed (majority: technical defects in notices voided the deed); dissent and petitioner argued defects were not a statutory ground for collateral relief and due process was satisfied.
- Supreme Court reversed: technical omissions did not fit the limited collateral-attack grounds in section 22–45, and the notice efforts met due-process standards under controlling precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omission of clerk’s address/phone in take notices voids tax-deed order | Omission is a fatal statutory defect making the deed void and subject to collateral attack | Statute’s limited 22–45 grounds do not include this technical omission; omission does not equal failure to name party | Held: Omission is not a ground for collateral relief under §22–45; deed not void on that basis |
| Whether failure to effect actual receipt (certified mail returned unclaimed) violated due process | Additional steps (neighbor inquiries, internet/record searches, regular mail) were required after certified mail returned unclaimed | Petitioner took extensive statutory and extra-statutory steps (title search, repeated personal attempts, certified mail, publication); further open-ended searches not required | Held: Due process satisfied; efforts exceeded Jones’s minimal requirements and follow Lowe II precedents |
| Proper interpretation of §22–45(4) conjunctive requirements | "And" should be read disjunctively to permit relief based solely on lack of diligent inquiry/effort | "And" is conjunctive; legislature intentionally limited collateral attack grounds to preserve finality/marketability | Held: Read conjunctively; both elements required; cannot create a new separate ground |
| Availability of alternative relief for former owner | n/a (respondent sought vacatur) | Court noted indemnity fund statutory remedy may be available to the estate | Held: Suggests estate consider indemnity claim under §21–305 as possible equitable relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (due process requires additional reasonable steps when certified mail notice is returned unclaimed in certain circumstances)
- In re Application of the County Collector, 225 Ill. 2d 208 (2007) (Lowe II) (Illinois Tax Code notice provisions compared with Jones; additional steps may not be required when statutory scheme provides multiple notice methods)
- In re Application of the County Collector, 217 Ill. 2d 1 (2005) (Lowe I) (discusses balance between collateral attack availability and finality/marketability of tax deeds; interprets §22–45 limits)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (establishes due-process standard: notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
- People v. A Parcel of Property Commonly Known as 1945 North 31st Street, 217 Ill. 2d 481 (2005) (statutory-construction principle: conjunctive "and" ordinarily requires all listed elements be met)