In re Application of the County Collector
2014 IL App (2d) 140223
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Owner failed to pay 2008 taxes on 65.2 acres in De Kalb County; Oak Park Investments bought the tax certificate on Oct. 26, 2009, which was later assigned to petitioner James Wolfe.
- Wolfe filed three redemption-extension notices with the county clerk, but the first notice listed the sale date as Oct. 29, 2009 (a typographical error) and extended the redemption deadline to Apr. 29, 2012 (a Sunday) instead of Apr. 26, 2012.
- Additional extensions were filed in April and June 2012, the final extension to Oct. 26, 2012; petitioner filed for a tax deed on June 27, 2012, but the property was not redeemed.
- Petitioner sought to vacate the sale under §21‑310(a)(5) (denied), then sought an order declaring the sale in error under §22‑50 after the county refused to refund his purchase price; the trial court denied relief as untimely and later denied the tax deed.
- Trial court held petitioner failed to comply with §21‑385 because of incorrect sale/expiration dates, so §22‑85 rendered the certificate void with no reimbursement; petitioner appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner (Wolfe) | Respondent (Collector) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §21‑385 require strict compliance with its notice content or is substantial compliance sufficient? | §21‑385 requires only substantial compliance; silence implies liberal construction. | §21‑385 requires strict accuracy (like §22‑5); burden to list correct dates is minimal. | §21‑385 requires only substantial compliance; silence and liberal construction support that inference. |
| Did petitioner substantially comply with §21‑385 despite misstating sale and extended dates by 3 days? | Yes; property described, dates mis‑stated were minor, and no prejudice shown. | No express argument on prejudice; emphasis on accuracy. | Yes; court finds the errors minor and no prejudice, so substantial compliance satisfied. |
| Is petitioner entitled to a declaration of sale in error and refund as a matter of law? | Requests declaration and refund, asserting timely petition and bona fide effort. | Contends certificate is void under §22‑85 since deed not recorded timely. | Not decided on merits; remanded for trial court to make factual finding whether petitioner made a bona fide effort to comply — that factual determination is for the trial court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Solon v. Midwest Medical Records Ass’n, 236 Ill. 2d 433 (court explains statutory construction and plain meaning governs)
- In re Du Page County Collector, 98 Ill. App. 3d 950 (1981) (redemption provisions are to be liberally construed)
- United Legal Foundation v. Department of Revenue, 272 Ill. App. 3d 666 (1995) (where a statute is to be liberally construed, substantial compliance suffices)
- In re Joseph B., 258 Ill. App. 3d 954 (1994) (liberal construction of remedial statutes supports substantial compliance)
- Behl v. Gingerich, 396 Ill. App. 3d 1078 (2009) (mandatory statutory provisions may be satisfied by substantial compliance)
- Schaffner v. 514 West Grant Place Condominium Ass’n, 324 Ill. App. 3d 1033 (2001) (bona fide purchaser status is a factual question)
- Walden v. Industrial Comm’n, 76 Ill. 2d 193 (1979) (appellate court should not make factual determinations in the first instance)
- People v. Walter, 349 Ill. App. 3d 142 (2004) (role of trier of fact to resolve factual disputes)