2023 IL App (1st) 220182
Ill. App. Ct.2023Background
- 5 Hole Acquisitions purchased the 2015 delinquent taxes on 2300 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago; later assigned its certificate to ALW Capital, LLC (ALW).
- The property had six commercial occupants; BCL‑Peterson Kane, LLC (BCL) acquired the property by judicial deed in Nov. 2017 and later changed its registered agent to Ayman Alomari (address in Orland Park).
- 5 Hole/ALW delivered statutory "take" notices and published notice; the Cook County sheriff attempted personal service at BCL’s Skokie office and served a take notice on Linda Alomari (Ayman’s wife) at the registered‑agent address; certified mail to the Skokie office was signed by a third party.
- ALW petitioned for a tax deed; the circuit court entered an order directing issuance of a tax deed; BCL filed a 2‑1203 petition to vacate alleging defective notice (including incorrect redemption amount and inadequate service to BCL, certain occupants, and last tax assessee).
- After cross‑motions and discovery, the circuit court granted summary judgment to ALW on most issues but reserved the service‑on‑BCL issue; later it granted summary judgment to ALW on service. On appeal, the appellate court reversed, granting summary judgment to BCL, vacating the tax deed, and remanding for calculation of payment to ALW under §22‑80.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (ALW) | Defendant's Argument (BCL) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the §22‑15/Code of Civil Procedure service requirements were strictly complied with for BCL (service on registered agent/registered office) | Service on the registered‑agent’s wife and certified mail to the Skokie office satisfied statutory notice; personal service on the registered agent is not required in in rem proceedings | Sheriff did not properly serve BCL’s registered agent or any officer/agent as required by §22‑15 and §2‑204; no service on Secretary of State; thus strict compliance failed | ALW failed to strictly comply; summary judgment for BCL; tax deed vacated; remand for payment calculation. |
| Whether the §22‑5 take notice (redemption amount) strictly complied with the Property Tax Code | The redemption amount listed was correct and complied with §22‑5 | Take notice omitted $13 in Cook County ordinance fees; thus defective | Not reached — appellate court resolved case on service grounds. |
| Whether ALW diligently ascertained, named, and gave notice to the last tax assessee of record | Not required or ALW complied with diligence obligations | ALW failed to name/serve the last known tax assessee | Not reached — decision dispositive on service to BCL. |
| Whether ALW diligently ascertained and caused notice to be served on four of six building occupants | ALW was not required to individually serve each occupant or complied with publication/mail methods | Four occupants were not properly served, violating §§22‑10–22‑20 | Not reached — dispositive ruling on BCL service. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pielet v. Pielet, 2012 IL 112064 (Ill. 2012) (summary judgment standards)
- Seymour v. Collins, 2015 IL 118432 (Ill. 2015) (summary judgment is a drastic remedy)
- Home Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 213 Ill. 2d 307 (Ill. 2004) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2006) (due process limitations on notice; distinction between due process and statutory strict‑compliance requirements)
- In re Application of the County Collector, 225 Ill. 2d 208 (Ill. 2007) (strict compliance with tax‑deed notice requirements)
- Midwest Real Estate v. In re Application of the County Collector, 295 Ill. App. 3d 703 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (courts assume prejudice from defective statutory notice)