In Re Application of County Treasurer
955 N.E.2d 669
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Garcia failed to pay 2004 real estate taxes on a two-flat Chicago property; Ridge TP, LLC purchased the certificate of purchase in 2006 after a delinquent sale.
- Glohry, LLC acquired the certificate of purchase in 2007; IndyMac’s notes were later assigned to Deutsche Bank, with Indy serving as loan servicer.
- Redemption period extensions occurred (to Feb. 9, 2009) and notices were issued under section 22-5; the initial notice incorrectly listed December 21, 2008 as the expiration date.
- Garcia never received the section 22-5 notice; petition for a tax deed was filed in 2009 after the redemption period expired without redemption.
- Glickman prepared the notices and investigated parties including MERS, MILA, and Indy Federal; MILA’s Illinois registration had been withdrawn, affecting who could be served; questions arose about diligent inquiry and proper service.
- The trial court denied the tax deed petition based on the 22-5 notice defect, while concluding 22-10 diligence issues did not bar relief; the appellate court affirmed, concluding strict compliance is required for 22-5 and that petitioner failed to prove diligence for 22-10.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether strict or substantial compliance governs 22-5 | Glohry argues substantial compliance suffices | OneWest contends strict compliance is required | Strict compliance required |
| Whether the incorrect 22-5 notice date defeats entitlement to a tax deed | Date error could be cured by other valid dates | Erroneous date defeats entitlement | Incorrect date defeats entitlement; strict compliance governs |
| Whether petitioner exercised due diligence to serve 22-10 notice | Petitioner conducted diligent inquiry | Service to MILA/Indy not adequately pursued; diligence lacking | Petitioner failed due diligence; 22-10 notice not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. County Treasurer, 311 Ill.App.3d 314 (1999) (diligent inquiry required to identify interested parties)
- In re Application of the County Collector, 295 Ill.App.3d 703 (1998) (strict compliance with post-sale notice preferred; substantial harms from noncompliance presumed)
- Gacki v. La Salle National Bank, 282 Ill.App.3d 961 (1996) (diligence required to identify interests inferable from public records)
- Clark v. Zaleski, 253 Ill. 63 (1911) (strict compliance historically required for pre-expiration notice)
- Jahn v. Troy Fire Protection District, 163 Ill.2d 275 (1994) (statutory hierarchy and later enactment controls when language conflicts)