2022 IL 126606
Ill.2022Background
- PNC filed a foreclosure in Du Page County in 2011; process was served on Jerzy and Halina Kusmierz at a Palatine address on April 1, 2011. A special process server appointment was entered April 4, 2011 (three days after service).
- Defendants did not appear; default judgment and judicial sale followed in 2012; sale confirmed June 12, 2012. PNC later sold the property; third parties Nellisa Ragland and Brian Heath purchased the parcel in 2013, financed construction and paid taxes/insurance.
- In 2018 the Kusmierzs filed a section 2-1401(f) petition claiming the foreclosure judgments were void for lack of personal jurisdiction because service in Cook County required prior court appointment under section 2-202(a).
- Ragland/Heath (and their mortgagee) and PNC moved to dismiss under section 2-619.1, arguing (1) bona fide purchaser protections under section 2-1401(e) apply because any jurisdictional defect was not apparent on the face of the record, and (2) the petition is barred by laches.
- The trial court dismissed with prejudice on laches and section 2-1401(e) grounds; the appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (PNC / purchasers) | Defendant's Argument (Kusmierz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether third-party purchasers are protected by 735 ILCS 5/2-1401(e) when a jurisdictional defect is alleged | Section 2-1401(e) protects purchasers who acquired title for value before the petition where lack of jurisdiction does not affirmatively appear on the face of the record | The April 4 appointment order put purchasers on constructive notice that service was defective (served before appointment) | Purchasers are protected: the record does not affirmatively show service occurred in Cook County, so the defect is not apparent and 2-1401(e) applies |
| Whether laches can bar relief from a judgment alleged to be void | Laches applies as an equitable defense to collateral attacks on judgments where delay and prejudice are shown | A void judgment may be attacked at any time; laches should not bar jurisdictional challenges to a void judgment | Laches may bar relief from a void judgment; here defendants unreasonably delayed (~7 years) and purchasers/PNC suffered prejudice, so laches defeats the petition |
| Whether unclean hands prevents application of laches | N/A (plaintiffs asserted laches) | PNC and purchasers engaged in misconduct (misrepresenting service or taking title despite notice) | Unclean hands argument forfeited and unsupported by evidence; does not prevent laches application |
Key Cases Cited
- Municipal Trust & Savings Bank v. Moriarty, 2021 IL 126290 (Ill. 2021) (section 2-202(a) requires strict compliance when defendant served in Cook County)
- Sarkissian v. Chicago Bd. of Educ., 201 Ill. 2d 95 (Ill. 2002) (section 2-1401(f) preserves existing rights to attack void judgments without satisfying ordinary 2-1401 procedural requirements)
- State Bank of Lake Zurich v. Thill, 113 Ill. 2d 294 (Ill. 1986) (lack of jurisdiction must affirmatively appear on the face of the record to defeat bona fide purchaser protections)
- James v. Frantz, 21 Ill. 2d 377 (Ill. 1961) (laches is a recognized defense to attacks on earlier judgments)
- Pyle v. Ferrell, 12 Ill. 2d 547 (Ill. 1957) (laches requires both lack of diligence and prejudice such as expenditures or changes in position)