In re Application of the County Treasurer & ex officio County Collector
2013 IL App (1st) 130103
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Salta purchased 2006 delinquent real estate taxes on a Cook County property (PIN 28-35-411-026-0000) on Aug 12, 2008.
- Salta filed a section 22-5 post-sale notice with the county clerk on Dec 22, 2008, listing the redemption expiration date as Feb 12, 2011 (a Saturday).
- Salta filed a petition for a tax deed on Aug 24, 2011; the trial court appointed a receiver (Flamm) on Sept 14, 2011; all interested parties were served per sections 22-10 to 22-25.
- The trial court denied Salta’s tax deed application on July 25, 2012, holding that the 22-5 notice improperly listed a Saturday as the expiration date and should reflect a nonweekend date per Glohry.
- The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed, holding that Section 22-5 notice requires strict compliance and that weekend/holiday dates must be excluded from calculation of the redemption period, following Glohry and rejecting substantial-compliance arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether listing a Saturday as the redemption expiration date complies with 22-5. | Flamm argues substantial compliance suffices. | Salta argues 22-5 requires precise, strict compliance. | Yes, strict compliance required; Saturday date is incorrect. |
| Whether Glohry governs the case and requires excluding weekend dates from redemption calculations. | Flamm contends Glohry dicta and not controlling here. | Salta relies on Glohry’s rule that weekend dates are excluded. | Glohry governs; weekend dates are excluded and the notice is invalid. |
| Whether lack of objections to the notice in the trial court affects validity. | Flamm asserts no objections do not cure defects. | Salta asserts no change in substance; objections unnecessary. | Lack of objections does not cure defective notice; strict compliance applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Glohry v. Ridge TP, LLC, 2011 IL App (1st) 101966 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2011) (strict compliance required; weekend date invalid; analysis supports exclusion of weekend dates)
- In re Application of County Collector, 295 Ill. App. 3d 703 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 1998) (notice sufficiency critical to due process; prevents prejudicial results)
- Gage v. Davis, 129 Ill. 236 (1889) (early notice-notice sufficiency principle cited by strict compliance analysis)
- Clark v. Zaleski, 253 Ill. 63 (1911) (historical support for strict compliance of notices)
- Bailey v. Smith, 178 Ill. 72 (1899) (historical support for notice requirements)
- Fisher v. Waldrop, 221 Ill. 2d 102 (2006) (guidance on statutory construction and interpretive approach)