Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Canale
2014 IL App (2d) 130676
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2014Background
- Nationstar filed a foreclosure complaint against Wayne Canale on Sept. 8, 2011, alleging it was the mortgagee and holder of the note; the attached note showed endorsements that did not name Nationstar.
- RBS Citizens and SBM Charter One Bank answered; Canale did not answer and default judgment was entered for Nationstar on June 5, 2012, including an order of sale.
- A judicial sale occurred Oct. 11, 2012; Nationstar purchased the property as the winning bidder and later moved to confirm the sale.
- Canale, appearing pro se, objected to confirmation and later moved to vacate, first arguing procedural objections to the sale and then (for the first time) challenging Nationstar’s standing/assignment chain.
- The trial court denied vacatur as Canale forfeited the standing defense by failing to plead; Canale appealed the confirmation denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff’s failure to plead standing deprives the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction | Nationstar argued the complaint alleged a foreclosure claim (a justiciable matter) and thus invoked the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction | Canale argued statutory pleading requirements (735 ILCS 5/15-1504) require pleading capacity/standing and failure renders judgment void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction | Court held that pleading defects as to standing do not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction because foreclosure is a justiciable matter; thus the judgment was not void |
| Whether the standing defense was forfeited | Nationstar relied on forfeiture principles (failure to plead affirmative defenses) | Canale conceded Lebron but contended standing is pleaded by plaintiff under the foreclosure statute and cannot be forfeited | Court invoked Lebron nuance but concluded even if standing was unpled, jurisdiction remained; thus forfeiture principles barred Canale’s late challenge to the extent it depended on jurisdictional voidness |
| Whether the appellate court should reach the merits of standing despite forfeiture | Nationstar argued the court need not reach standing because subject-matter jurisdiction exists and Canale didn’t meet equitable standards to vacate sale | Canale asked the court to address standing for reasons of substantial justice, plain error, or public importance | Court declined to reach merits: equitable relief to vacate a sale requires showing a meritorious defense and that justice was not otherwise done; Canale failed to satisfy that standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill. 2d 217 (Illinois 2010) (lack of standing is an affirmative defense that can be forfeited if not timely pleaded)
- Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 325 (Illinois 2002) (subject-matter jurisdiction derives from the state constitution and exists whenever a complaint presents a justiciable matter)
- In re Luis R., 239 Ill. 2d 295 (Illinois 2010) (a defectively stated claim can still invoke subject-matter jurisdiction if it falls within the class of cases the court may decide)
- People v. Greco, 204 Ill. 2d 400 (Illinois 2003) (standing is an element of justiciability)