2022 IL App (1st) 211511
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background
- Two adjacent commercial lots in Harvey, IL (PINs 29-29-206-020-0000 and 29-29-206-024-0000) were sold at a 2019 Cook County scavenger tax sale; certificates issued to Cook County Land Bank (Land Bank).
- Land Bank filed §22-5 take notices and two extension notices; take notice for parcel 1 listed the address as 3256 Ridge Road (tax records) while respondents contended the correct address was 17100 S. Halsted.
- Capital Equity Land Trust (record owner; trustee Monty S. Boatright) and Holdings Group (property manager) objected after Land Bank petitioned for tax deeds, arguing defective notice, improper identification of certificate holder, extended-redemption defects, and failure to serve the City of Harvey.
- The circuit court denied respondents’ objections, concluding Land Bank and County were the same entity, notices used official tax-record addresses, and the City of Harvey had no recorded interest requiring notice.
- On appeal respondents raised: (1) §22-5 notice defects (wrong address; improper holder listed), (2) improper extension notices under §21-385, (3) defective §22-10/22-15/22-25 notices (nonexistent address), and (4) failure to serve a recorded/interested party (City of Harvey).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Were §22-5 take notices defective because Land Bank was not holder when sent and parcel 1 address was wrong? | Land Bank: notices complied; Land Bank/Cook County are the same; used county tax records for address. | Capital Equity: Land Bank lacked the certificates when notices sent; notice listed a non-existent address for parcel 1. | Court: Land Bank was the certificate holder; listed address (3256 Ridge Rd) matched official county records; §22-5 strict compliance satisfied. |
| 2. Were extension notices invalid under §21-385 because they named Land Bank before assignment? | Land Bank: it held the certificates at relevant times; extensions valid. | Respondents: extensions issued before assignment, so invalid. | Court: Land Bank held certificates throughout; extension notices valid. |
| 3. Did notices under §§22-10/22-15/22-25 fail for using an incorrect/nonexistent address? | Land Bank: it properly relied on assessor/treasurer/clerk records; used best available information. | Respondents: address was incorrect/nonexistent, rendering notices defective. | Court: official county records showed 3256 Ridge Rd for PIN; notices complied with Code. |
| 4. Should the City of Harvey have been identified/served as an interested party because of a pending municipal suit? | Respondents: lis pendens/municipal enforcement action shown on title report created a recorded interest requiring notice. | Land Bank: municipal suit produced no judgment lien; no recorded interest to trigger notice. | Court: pending municipal suit/lis pendens alone does not create a recorded property interest; City not entitled to §22-10 notice. |
Key Cases Cited
- S.I. Securities v. Powless, 403 Ill. App. 3d 426 (2010) (certificate of purchase does not transfer legal title)
- Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. v. Pappas, 194 Ill.2d 99 (2000) (tax-sale principles regarding title and purchaser rights)
- In re Application of County Treasurer, 214 Ill.2d 253 (2005) (Article 22 tax-deed procedures governed by statute)
- In re Application of County Collector (Dream Sites), 356 Ill. App.3d 668 (2005) (notice must include every essential statutory element; strict compliance required)
- In re Cook County Treasurer, 185 Ill.2d 428 (1998) (who may be an interested party entitled to notice)
- In re Ward, 311 Ill. App.3d 314 (1999) (tax purchaser must exercise due diligence to locate and notify recorded/interested parties)