In re Application of the County Treasurer
2011 IL App (1st) 101966
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Garcia owned a two-flat Chicago property with unpaid 2004 real estate taxes prompting a tax deed action.
- Ridge TP, LLC purchased the property at a 2006 tax sale; redemption period was originally two years and six months from sale.
- The redemption period was extended first to Feb 9, 2009, and later Garcia’s redemption period expired March 23, 2009.
- The post-sale section 22-5 notice listed December 21, 2008 as the expiration date, before the extension, and Garcia did not receive it.
- Glohry attempted to serve 22-10 notice to Garcia, MERS, and MILA; OneWest (successor to Indy) acquired Indy Mac and later contested service details.
- The trial court denied the tax deed, finding 22-5 strict compliance, but held 22-10 service adequate; court ultimately denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 22-5 requires strict or substantial compliance | Glohry argues substantial compliance suffices. | Respondents contend strict compliance is required. | Strict compliance required. |
| Whether the 22-5 notice date misstatement invalidates entitlement to a deed | Date error does not defeat entitlement under substantial compliance. | Incorrect date on notice defeats entitlement under strict compliance. | Date misstatement invalidates entitlement. |
| Whether petitioner exercised due diligence to serve 22-10 notice to all interested parties | Petitioner conducted reasonable diligence identifying MERS, MILA, and Indy Federal. | Diligence was insufficient; MILA’s withdrawal and other gaps were not adequately pursued. | Petitioner failed to demonstrate due diligence; 22-10 notice not properly served. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Application of Ward, 311 Ill. App. 3d 314 (1999) (diligence and notice standards for 22-10 serving requirements)
- Banco Popular v. Beneficial Systems, Inc., 335 Ill. App. 3d 196 (2002) (diligent inquiry required to identify interested parties)
- Gacki v. La Salle National Bank, 282 Ill. App. 3d 961 (1996) (manifest weight review of diligence findings)
- Clark v. Zaleski, 253 Ill. 63 (1911) (strict compliance doctrine in pre-expiration notice context)
- Jahn v. Troy Fire Protection District, 163 Ill. 2d 275 (1994) (principle of more recent statute prevailing when in direct conflict)
- Barragan v. Casco Design Corp., 216 Ill. 2d 435 (2005) (statutory construction principles and intended legislative purpose)
- Solon v. Midwest Medical Records Ass’n, 236 Ill. 2d 433 (2010) (plain meaning and ambiguity in statutory interpretation)
- In re Application of the County Collector, 295 Ill. App. 3d 703 (1998) (prefatory language and strict compliance considerations in 22-5 context)
- In re Application of the County Treasurer, 347 Ill. App. 3d 769 (2004) (diligence and notice standards for counterpart contexts)