2022 IL 126929
Ill.2022Background
- In June 2016 GAN C purchased delinquent taxes at Cook County's annual tax sale for the 2014 tax year and paid the 2013 second-installment tax required by section 21-240 to complete the purchase; a certificate of purchase issued in September 2016.
- GAN C delivered a section 22-5 notice listing “Sold for General Taxes of 2014” and later filed a section 22-10 notice that included the parenthetical “2014 (2013 Incld).”
- GAN C assigned its interest to Blossom63; the record owner transferred the property to Devonshire after the assignment but before a tax deed issued.
- The circuit court ordered issuance of a tax deed to Blossom63, then vacated that order finding the section 22-5 notice failed to strictly comply because it did not list the 2013 tax year.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the section 22-5 form’s “Sold for General Taxes of (year)” requires the tax sale year only (2014 here) and that Blossom63 strictly complied; the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Blossom63's Argument | Devonshire's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the section 22-5 form must list all delinquent tax years the purchaser paid to complete the sale or only the tax-sale year | Section 22-5 requires listing the tax-sale year (the year of the delinquent taxes sold) so listing 2014 satisfied the form | Section 21-240 required payment of prior unpaid taxes to complete the purchase, so the section 22-5 form must list all years actually paid (2014 and 2013) | The form’s “Sold for General Taxes of (year)” means the tax-sale year only; listing 2014 satisfied strict compliance. |
| Whether the first part of the section 22-5 form must convey the total amount needed to redeem (including years paid) | The sale-year line serves to identify which tax sale to redeem; redemption-amount details belong elsewhere on the form or in an estimate | The sale-year line should reflect the year(s) actually paid so owners know the redemption amount owed | The first part’s purpose is to notify the owner of the sale (the tax-sale year); the redemption amount is provided in other parts of the form. |
| Whether prior Illinois decisions (Gage, Gaither) require listing every year paid on the section 22-5 form | Those cases do not control this statutory-language question here; the form must be read as written | Relied on Gage and Gaither to argue the notice must identify the actual years paid | Court found Gage and Gaither inapposite and did not support Devonshire’s reading. |
| Whether to decide disputed section 22-80 interest and related issues | Blossom63 prevailed on strict compliance; appellate disposition meant no reimbursement under section 22-80 | Devonshire raised alternate arguments about the interest calculation and nature of sale | Court declined to decide those remaining issues as they would not affect relief; no advisory ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Zaleski, 253 Ill. 63 (1911) (establishes requirement of strict compliance with tax-sale notice provisions)
- Gage v. Davis, 129 Ill. 236 (1889) (addresses adequacy of post-sale notices to show whether sale was for taxes or special assessments and correct redemption date)
- Gaither v. Lager, 2 Ill. 2d 293 (1954) (holds a notice that fails to identify whether sale was for taxes or assessments or for what year is insufficient)
- In re Application of the County Treasurer, 214 Ill. 2d 253 (2005) (discusses statutory-construction principles and postjudgment attack on tax-deed judgments)
- In re Application of the County Collector (Lowe), 225 Ill. 2d 208 (2007) (explains purposes of section 22-5 notice and protections for property owners)