Pennymac Corp. v. Jenkins
105 N.E.3d 962
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Property at 1041 E. 168th St. was sold after foreclosure; Bank of America was successful bidder, deed recorded to Citibank, which later quitclaimed the property to Pennymac on March 10, 2016.
- Jenkins (occupant) was served with a pre-eviction “Notice of Intent” dated Sept. 8, 2016, which named Citibank as plaintiff; complaint for forcible entry and detainer was filed Oct. 31, 2016, naming Citibank.
- Citibank acknowledged the plaintiff name was erroneous, moved for leave to amend, and on Dec. 20, 2016 the trial court granted leave; amended complaint named Pennymac.
- Jenkins moved to dismiss and later asserted affirmative defenses that the notice did not comply with statutory requirements because it named a non-owner (Citibank); Jenkins also opposed summary judgment and filed a cross-motion.
- Trial court granted Pennymac’s summary judgment motion (Apr. 17, 2017), finding the defective plaintiff name was cured by the amended complaint and that the notice complied with the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act; Jenkins appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in allowing substitution/amendment of plaintiff | Amendment was proper and cured misnaming; should be allowed under pleadings rules (misnomer/mistaken identity doctrines) | Amendment was improper because complaint and attached pre-eviction notice named a different, distinct entity (Citibank), not mere misnomer | Amendment allowed; court did not abuse discretion under 735 ILCS 5/2-616 considering cure, timeliness, lack of prejudice, and prompt correction |
| Whether the pre-eviction notice complied with statutory requirements (Detainer Act) | Notice substantially complied: personally served, signed by plaintiff’s attorney; statute does not require owner’s name on notice | Notice was defective because it named Citibank (a non-owner), so demand was insufficient | Notice complied with 735 ILCS 5/9-104 and 9-102; owner’s name not required; signed attorney satisfied signature requirement |
| Whether amendment of the complaint cured defects in the attached notice and permitted summary judgment | Amending complaint to Pennymac cured any defect for purposes of proceeding and summary judgment | Amending complaint cannot retroactively fix a defective pre-eviction notice attached to the original complaint | Court held amendment cured the defect for purposes of the action and summary judgment was appropriate |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on entitlement to possession | Pennymac had superior right to possession, Jenkins failed to vacate after demand; no genuine issue of material fact | Jenkins conceded Pennymac’s right to possession but maintained notice defect precluded judgment | Summary judgment affirmed: no genuine issue and Pennymac entitled to possession as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- General Motors Corp. v. Pappas, 242 Ill. 2d 163 (explains notice-of-appeal jurisdictional requirements)
- Burtell v. First Charter Service Corp., 76 Ill. 2d 427 (unspecified prior orders reviewable if they are steps leading to appealed judgment)
- Moore v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., 402 Ill. App. 3d 62 (factors for evaluating leave to amend pleadings)
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (appellant’s burden to supply sufficient record on appeal)