2013 IL App (1st) 130463
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Equity One paid delinquent 2006 real estate taxes for property at 6901 South Euclid Ave, Chicago, and petitioned for a tax deed.
- Williams objected to Equity One’s petition, arguing the post-sale notice omitted the municipality name and was not completely filled in.
- Equity One’s post-sale notice included the PIN but not the city name, which the Statute requires to be included in the location field.
- Pre-expiration notices later for 22-10 and 22-25 were issued with the property location also including the municipality name.
- The circuit court denied the tax deed; Equity One appealed to the appellate court, which affirmed the denial on strict-compliance grounds.
- The court relied on Glohry, Salta Group, Midwest Real Estate Investment, and Ohr to hold that strict compliance with notice forms is required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omission of municipality name violated 22-5 strict-compliance rule | Equity One: location may be identified by PIN; city name not required | Williams: municipality name needed for complete notice | Not complete; strict compliance required; omission defeats notice |
| Whether PIN alone suffices to identify property in post-sale notice | Equity One: PIN and map reference identify the property | Williams: location must include municipality name | PIN alone insufficient; municipality name required |
| Whether strict-compliance standard should apply to notice forms in tax-deed proceedings | Equity One: no unwritten requirements beyond statute | Williams: strict compliance, including name, is essential | Strict compliance applies; deficient notice bars tax deed |
Key Cases Cited
- Glohry v. County Collector, 2011 IL App (1st) 101966 (Illinois Appellate Court (1st) 2011) (strict compliance; notice defective if it omits required elements)
- Salta Group, 2013 IL App (1st) 130103 (Illinois Appellate Court (1st) 2013) (notice must be complete; no prejudice needed for invalid notice)
- Midwest Real Estate Investment, 295 Ill. App. 3d 704 (Illinois Appellate Court 1998) (strictness of notice requirements; preferring strict compliance)
- Ohr v. County Collector, 100 Ill. App. 3d 178 (Illinois Appellate Court 1981) (notice must be correct to avoid forfeiture; injury presumed)