2014 IL App (2d) 130995
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Respondent owned Boone County real estate with 2008 delinquent taxes; Z Financial, LLC purchased the tax certificate on Nov 6, 2009.
- Petitioner later assigned its rights to John Zajicek (d/b/a Z Financial) and filed a petition for tax deed on Apr 5, 2012.
- Redemption period expired Nov 6, 2011 unless extended; Z Financial provided two notices to extend (Feb 3, 2010 and Apr 5, 2012) but had no valid rights in the certificate when the notices were given.
- Respondent redeemed on Oct 2, 2012 under protest, arguing petitioner failed to comply with the Property Tax Code and thus was not entitled to a tax deed.
- Trial court struck the protest and dismissed the petition; respondent timely appealed.
- Court remands to determine whether petitioner made a bona fide attempt to comply with statutory requirements for obtaining a tax deed and to award any refundable redemption money if applicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether protest should be sustained for lack of proper notice by petitioner | Giordano contends notices were invalid since petitioner had no rights when given. | Z Financial argues notices extended the redemption period. | Protest sustained; extension by petitioner invalid; remand for bona fide attempt evaluation. |
| Whether the petition for a tax deed was timely under the notice regime | Giordano argues strict compliance with 22-10 and 22-40 was not met. | Z Financial contends notice provisions were effectively satisfied. | Strict compliance not satisfied; tax deed not permitted on these grounds; remand warranted. |
| What restitution, if any, should be awarded to petitioner if protest is sustained | Petitioner seeks return of purchase price and posted taxes, excluding penalties. | Respondent argues refund rules under section 22-50 should apply only if bona fide attempt proven. | Remand to determine bona fide attempt and potential refund per 22-50 in light of Darco. |
| Whether the extension of redemption period was valid given assignment status | Extension notice valid despite assignment. | Extension nullity because assignee not yet vested with rights at time of notice. | Extension nullity; protest sustained; remand for factual determination. |
| Whether 22-85 voids the deed where not recorded timely | Section 22-85 not applicable since redemption under protest occurred before expiry. | Not expressly challenged in the record beyond protest. | 22-85 not applicable; focus on 21-380 and related sections; remand for factual resolution. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Application of the County Treasurer & ex officio County Collector, 305 Ill. App. 3d 995 (Ill. App. 1999) (bona fide attempt framework for refunds when protest upheld)
- Darco, 325 Ill. App. 3d 152 (Ill. App. 2001) (refund mechanics and protest impact on deed proceedings)
- A.P. Properties, Inc. v. Goshinsky, 186 Ill. 2d 524 (Ill. 1999) (timing and effectiveness of protest-related actions under 21-380)
- In re Kane County Collector, 297 Ill. App. 3d 745 (Ill. App. 1998) (bona fide attempt standard and procedural defenses in tax deed cases)