2018 IL App (3d) 160659
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- SASS filed a petition for a tax deed after purchasing delinquent 2007 taxes; the circuit court ordered a tax deed to SASS on July 19, 2012, and SASS recorded the deed on September 7, 2012.
- Citi filed a 2-1401 petition (filed Sept. 12, 2014) arguing alternatively that (1) the deed is void without right to reimbursement under 35 ILCS 200/22-85 because it was not recorded within one year after the redemption period expired, or (2) the tax-sale notices were constitutionally deficient.
- The statutory redemption period for a single-family dwelling expired May 6, 2011 (sale Nov. 6, 2008); a deed must be recorded within one year after that expiration or it is void under section 22-85.
- SASS produced two purported extension notices; one listed “Sass Muni V” (not the certificate holder), the other listed “US BANK-CUST/SASS MUNI V dtr” in a report column but was filed after the statutory redemption period expired.
- The circuit court granted Citi’s summary judgment, vacated its July 19, 2012 order, and declared the tax deed void without right to reimbursement; SASS’s motion to reconsider was denied and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Citi) | Defendant's Argument (SASS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the tax deed is void under 35 ILCS 200/22-85 for failure to record within one year after expiration of the redemption period | Deed was recorded Sept. 7, 2012, after the one-year deadline (May 6, 2012) because the redemption period was not validly extended; thus the deed is void without reimbursement | SASS contends it timely extended the redemption period to Nov. 3, 2011 via extension notices, which gave until Nov. 3, 2012 to record | Held for Citi: extensions were ineffective (not filed by certificate holder or filed after expiration); deed void under § 22-85 |
| Whether notices purporting to extend redemption period were legally effective | Notices were ineffective because only the certificate holder may extend the redemption period and the evidence shows US Bank, not SASS, was certificate holder; one notice was filed after expiration | SASS argued extension reports (showing Sass Muni V / for Sass Fund entries) validly extended the period | Held for Citi: notices were nullities; initial May 6, 2011 expiration controlled |
| Whether Citi’s 2-1401 petition was procedurally barred for untimeliness or failure to plead diligence/meritorious defense | A 2-1401 petition attacking a judgment as void is exempt from section 2-1401 diligence/merits requirements and may be brought at any time | SASS argued the order was only voidable (court had jurisdiction), so Citi had to meet 2-1401 and §22-45 requirements and the two-year deadline | Held for Citi: petition challenged a void tax deed under §22-85; void-judgment attacks are not subject to 2-1401 diligence/merit rules or §22-45 prerequisites |
| Whether court need reach due-process insufficiency of tax-sale notice after ruling under §22-85 | Citi alleged insufficient notice as alternative ground | SASS contested insufficiency; contended the court’s prior findings supported validity | Court did not decide due-process claim because it affirmed vacatur based on §22-85 voidness |
Key Cases Cited
- Warren County Soil & Water Conservation District v. Walters, 2015 IL 117783 (discussing de novo review of void-judgment challenges)
- Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of Education, 201 Ill. 2d 95 (void-order attacks exempt from 2-1401 diligence/merits requirements)
- Pielet v. Pielet, 2012 IL 112064 (summary-judgment review and cross-motions principles)
- In re Application of the County Treasurer & ex rel. County Collector (Sirt), 333 Ill. App. 3d 355 (notice/extension timing and court duty to vacate void tax deeds)
- In re Application of the County Collector (Devon Bank), 397 Ill. App. 3d 535 (void-judgment attacks and application of tax-code remedies)