2012 IL App (1st) 101976
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Respondent MB Financial Bank owned property; CCPI sought a tax deed after a 2008 tax sale.
- GJ Venture purchased at the 2006 tax sale; Sabre Group LLC later acquired GJ’s rights via assignment.
- Two extension notices (April and July 2008) were filed to extend redemption; Sabre’s involvement became the assignee.
- GJ had assigned away its rights before the extension notices were filed; the April 2008 notice was not signed by an officer of GJ.
- The tax deed was recorded November 4, 2009; respondent challenged the deed as untimely and sought to void it and vacate the order directing issuance.
- Trial court dismissed counts I–II of respondent’s motion; issue on appeal was the validity of extension notices and the resulting timeliness of the deed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the tax deed is void for untimely recording due to an invalid extension notice. | GJ’s extension was a nullity since GJ had assigned away its rights. | Sabre’s extension filings were valid as the purchaser/assignee. | Deed void; extension by non-certificate holder invalid. |
| Whether Section 21-385 extension of redemption harmonized with Section 21-350 requires the assignee to file the extension. | The assignee must be the certificate holder to extend. | The statute allows purchaser or assignee to file the extension. | Holder/assignee must be the certificate holder; extension null because GJ wasn’t holder. |
| Whether the extension issue defeats timeliness of recording under 22-85. | Timeliness was violated due to null extension. | Proper extension preserved the redemption period. | Timeliness not satisfied; tax deed void. |
| Whether the trial court erred in dismissing counts I–II as to voiding the deed. | Counts allege void deed and fraud in procurement. | Dismissal proper given the purportedly valid notices. | Court reversed; deed to be set aside. |
| Whether any collateral attack on the tax deed is permissible under 2-1401. | 2-1401 allows relief from void orders. | Direct attack via 22-45 governs; collateral attack limited. | 2-1401 relief available; but primary reason is voidness under 22-85. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Application of the County Treasurer & ex officio County Collector of Cook County, 333 Ill. App. 3d 355 (2002) (duty to vacate void orders; collateral attacks permissible)
- Devon Bank v. County of Cook, 397 Ill. App. 3d 535 (2009) (voidness and relief from void judgments; 2-1401(f) exemption)
- Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of Education, 201 Ill. 2d 95 (2002) (2-1401 relief exemptions for voidness claims)
- Collinsville Community Unit School District No. 10 v. Regional Board of School Trustees, 218 Ill. 2d 175 (2006) (in pari materia interpretation of statutes)
- Michigan Avenue National Bank v. County of Cook, 191 Ill. 2d 493 (2000) (statutory interpretation of redemption provisions)
- Solon v. Midwest Medical Records Ass’n, 236 Ill. 2d 433 (2010) (plain meaning and harmonization of statutes)