MB Financial Bank, N.A. v. Allen
37 N.E.3d 436
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- MB Financial Bank (successor to Heritage) sued Daniel and Margaret Allen to foreclose a mortgage on multiunit property after default on a $900,000 loan; note and mortgage made the Allens jointly and severally liable and authorized personal deficiency judgments.
- MBF’s complaint largely followed the Foreclosure Law short-form but altered paragraph (M) to identify makers of the note and state it would not seek deficiencies against bankruptcy‑protected parties; copies of the note and mortgage were attached and admitted.
- MBF moved for summary judgment (unopposed); the court entered a judgment of foreclosure that included money judgments against each Allen “on the note” and allowed entry of a deficiency judgment if sale proceeds were insufficient.
- MBF purchased the property at judicial sale; the report showed a deficiency of $603,339.02. At the confirmation hearing the trial court denied MBF’s request for personal deficiency judgments, finding the complaint did not give sufficient notice.
- The trial court denied MBF’s motion to reconsider and struck/modified language in the foreclosure judgment (removing “on the note” and adding that personal deficiencies could only be entered if properly pled). MBF appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint sufficiently pled a request for personal deficiency judgments | MBF: complaint, exhibits, and prayer (including specific request) and attached note/mortgage put Allens on notice and support deficiencies | Allens: deviation from statutory short form (par. M) failed to give notice; MBF assumed the risk of deviating | Court held complaint (liberally construed with exhibits) sufficiently supported personal deficiency judgments; trial court erred in denying them |
| Whether denial of MBF’s motion to reconsider was proper | MBF: trial court misapplied Foreclosure Law; denial reviewable de novo | Allens: MBF’s pleading deficiency justified denial | Court reversed denial of motion to reconsider as error under applicable law |
| Whether the trial court properly modified the foreclosure judgment language after entry | MBF: modification unnecessary and inconsistent with complaint and judgment | Allens: modification clarified that personal deficiencies require proper pleading | Court vacated the trial court’s order modifying the judgment language (because deficiencies were properly pled) |
| Whether MBF’s failure to timely amend complaint barred deficiency relief | MBF: pleadings and evidence supported deficiency; amendment unnecessary | Allens: MBF sought amendment late and assumed risk | Court declined to reach amendment issue (unnecessary after entering deficiencies) |
Key Cases Cited
- Heritage Standard Bank & Trust Co. v. Heritage Standard Bank & Trust Co., 149 Ill. App. 3d 563 (1986) (general prayer and allegations of indebtedness can authorize a deficiency judgment)
- Farmer City State Bank v. Champaign National Bank, 138 Ill. App. 3d 847 (1985) (deficiency judgments proper against note makers even without explicit allegation of personal liability)
- Fritzsche v. LaPlante, 399 Ill. App. 3d 507 (2010) (general prayer for relief can support any judgment backed by pleaded facts)
- County of Du Page v. Henderson, 402 Ill. 179 (1949) (general relief doctrine supports judgments consistent with pleaded facts)
- Wrlla v. Wrlla, 342 Ill. 31 (1930) (general prayer suffices for relief warranted by pleadings)
- Williams v. Estate of Cross, 85 Ill. App. 3d 923 (1980) (same principle regarding general prayer)
- Herron v. Anderson, 254 Ill. App. 3d 365 (1993) (failure to file cross‑appeal waives challenge to confirmation/order)