History
  • No items yet
midpage
MidFirst Bank v. Riley
117 N.E.3d 516
Ill. App. Ct.
2019
Read the full case

Background

  • Denise Riley executed a 1999 mortgage note (Anchor → Fleet → Washington Mutual → MidFirst) securing property in Dolton, IL; multiple recorded assignments and three loan modification agreements (2006, 2007, 2010) are in the record.
  • Riley defaulted on the October 2012 payment under the third modification; MidFirst filed foreclosure in 2013, attaching the note, assignments, allonge (indorsed in blank), and loan modifications.
  • Riley moved to dismiss (asserting lack of standing) and later pleaded affirmative defenses and counterclaims including Consumer Fraud Act, common-law fraud, and promissory estoppel; some claims were struck and repleaded.
  • MidFirst moved for summary judgment (June 2016); the circuit court granted foreclosure and entered judgment for MidFirst on Riley’s counterclaims and defenses (Oct. 11, 2016); sale was held and confirmed (Mar–Jul 2017).
  • On appeal Riley challenged denial of dismissal, denial of reconsideration, summary judgment on standing and on fraud claims, and confirmation of the judicial sale; the appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue MidFirst's Argument Riley's Argument Held
Motion to dismiss for lack of standing Complaint and attached note/allonge/assignments show prima facie standing and compliance with Supreme Court Rule 113(b) Exhibits inconsistent; allonge invalid; no merger documentation; indorsement marked “VOID” so chain unclear Denial affirmed — plaintiff made prima facie showing of standing and Rule 113 compliance
Summary judgment on standing/affirmative defense Attached original note, Fleet→Washington Mutual merger document, allonge indorsed in blank, and assignment to MidFirst show standing; assignment to MERS (post-assignment) irrelevant No Fleet→WM indorsement; "VOID" marking creates material factual dispute; MERS assignment undermines chain Grant affirmed — plaintiff proved standing; Riley produced no admissible evidence to create genuine fact issue
Summary judgment on Consumer Fraud Act and common-law fraud Affidavit of MidFirst VP shows repeated HAMP reviews and Riley failed to qualify; no counteraffidavit or evidence Riley applied or qualified Plaintiff failed to follow HAMP; deceptive conduct by not offering valid HAMP modification Grant affirmed — undisputed affidavit evidence defeated fraud claims; Riley offered no contrary evidence
Confirmation of judicial sale (set-aside under 15-1508) Court already rejected same HAMP-based defenses; Riley failed to prove she applied for MHAP/HAMP or submit required documentation Sale should be set aside for material HAMP violations or defective HAMP offer Confirmation affirmed — no abuse of discretion; Riley did not prove she applied or that statutory prerequisites for set-aside were met

Key Cases Cited

  • Glisson v. City of Marion, 188 Ill. 2d 211 (Illinois 1999) (standing doctrine prevents parties without real interest from litigating)
  • Greer v. Illinois Housing Development Authority, 122 Ill. 2d 462 (Illinois 1988) (lack of standing is an affirmative defense)
  • Illinois Graphics Co. v. Nickum, 159 Ill. 2d 469 (Illinois 1994) (definition of "affirmative matter" for section 2-619 motions)
  • Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 403 (Illinois 2002) (elements of a claim under the Consumer Fraud Act)
  • Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill. 2d 229 (Illinois 1986) (affidavit facts not contradicted by counteraffidavit are admitted on summary judgment)
  • Horwitz v. Holabird & Root, 212 Ill. 2d 1 (Illinois 2004) (nonmoving party must present evidentiary facts to survive summary judgment)
  • Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90 (Illinois 1992) (de novo review on appeal from summary judgment)
  • Household Bank, FSB v. Lewis, 229 Ill. 2d 173 (Illinois 2008) (standard of review for confirming or rejecting judicial sale)
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. McCluskey, 2013 IL 115469 (Illinois 2013) (limitations on using 15-1508(b)(iv) to relitigate meritorious defenses after sale confirmation)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: MidFirst Bank v. Riley
Court Name: Appellate Court of Illinois
Date Published: Feb 25, 2019
Citation: 117 N.E.3d 516
Docket Number: 1-17-1986
Court Abbreviation: Ill. App. Ct.