2018 IL App (2d) 170369
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Interstate Funding purchased delinquent 2012 (and prior) taxes on a Lake County condominium owned by Kenneth Meurer and received a certificate of sale.
- Interstate filed the post-sale notice (section 22-5) using a specimen form prepared by the county clerk; the clerk inserted the property index number (PIN) on the line the form labeled "certificate number."
- Meurer objected in the circuit court, arguing the notices were defective because the certificate number line should have read "not applicable" rather than the PIN, and thus the statutory notice requirements were not strictly followed.
- Lake County (county clerk/collector) and Interstate explained Lake County does not assign a separate certificate number and routinely uses the PIN on forms; the notices otherwise provided correct information.
- The trial court denied Meurer’s objection, granted Interstate’s application for a tax deed, and Meurer appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether using the PIN on statutory notice forms in the space labeled "certificate number" violated the strict-compliance notice requirement for post-sale/pre-expiration notices | Meurer: inserting the PIN produced incorrect information; the form required "not applicable" if no certificate number exists, so notices were defective | Interstate/Lake County: county clerk prepared the form, no separate certificate numbers are issued in Lake County, the PIN is accurate and was used consistently; notices conveyed correct info | Court: Using the PIN satisfied strict compliance; the PIN functioned reasonably as the identifier and did not render notices incorrect |
| Whether the purchaser failed to strictly comply with the complex Code notice scheme (sections 22-5 through 22-25) | Meurer: multiple defects in notices (only specifically argued the certificate-number/ PIN issue) | Interstate: notices imparted complete and correct information; clerk’s practice is permissible under statutes authorizing clerk procedures | Court: Strict compliance requirement met; notices conveyed necessary information and conformed to statutory purpose |
| Whether county clerks may administratively adopt identifier systems for certificates of sale (e.g., using PINs) | Meurer: implied county clerk cannot equate PIN with certificate number | Lake County/Interstate: clerks have ministerial authority to create registry systems and forms; PIN use is reasonable and public-accessible | Court: County clerks may use reasonable procedures; use of PIN is permissible and provides public access |
| Whether errors or duplications of information (PIN also appears elsewhere) invalidate notice | Meurer: duplication/incorrect placement renders notice defective | Interstate: duplication does not create misinformation when facts are correct; statutory forms must be completely filled, but correct info suffices | Court: Correct, complete information—although duplicative—does not defeat strict compliance; notices were not misleading |
Key Cases Cited
- Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (1984) (appellate review presumes circuit court order conforms with law when record is incomplete)
- Midwest Real Estate Investment Co. v. County Collector, 295 Ill. App. 3d 703 (1998) (notice omissions can render post-sale notices insufficient)
- People ex rel. Carr v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., 316 Ill. 410 (1925) (county clerk duties regarding tax collection are ministerial)
- In re Application of the Cook County Collector, 100 Ill. App. 3d 178 (1981) (material errors in notice—e.g., wrong municipality—invalidate notices)
- Anderson, 162 Ill. App. 3d 815 (1987) (certificate conveys purchaser’s rights following tax sale)
- Williams v. Danley Lumber Co., 129 Ill. App. 3d 325 (1984) (appellate courts require clearly defined issues and arguments)