Royalty Farms, LLC v. Forest Pres. Dist. of Cook Cnty., 92 N.E.3d 943

Background

Royalty Properties took a $14.5 million loan from Amcore secured by a mortgage on a 400-acre horse farm; Royalty Farms purportedly leased part of the farm from Royalty Properties.
Amcore failed and FDIC (as receiver) sold Amcore’s loan assets to BMO Harris, which later assigned its interest to the Forest Preserve District of Cook County (FPD).
The circuit court granted FPD summary judgment in the foreclosure action, approved a sheriff’s sale at which FPD was the high bidder, and later the sale was approved; Royalty Properties timely appealed the foreclosure judgment.
After the sale but before final resolution of the foreclosure appeal, Royalty Farms sued FPD for breach of landlord duties and FPD counterclaimed seeking, inter alia, eviction (count III). The trial court ultimately ordered Royalty Farms to vacate and entered possession orders.
The appellate court reversed the foreclosure summary judgment in the separate foreclosure appeal (BMO Harris v. Royalty Properties), creating a question whether FPD had any present property interest; the trial court nevertheless left possession with FPD pending that foreclosure litigation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Royalty Farms)	Defendant's Argument (FPD)	Held
Whether appellate court has jurisdiction over possession orders under Ill. S. Ct. Rule 304(a)	The possession orders are final as to eviction and include Rule 304(a) language so appealable	Orders did not finally resolve all claims so trial court retained authority unless Rule 304(a) applied	Court found March 4 and May 19 orders modified an earlier final eviction order and included Rule 304(a) language; appellate court has jurisdiction
Whether FPD could lawfully obtain possession based on its purchase at the foreclosure sale	FPD obtained rights from the foreclosure sale and so could terminate/evict under the lease	Royalty Farms argued the foreclosure judgment (and sale) was reversed so FPD has no present title or right to evict	Reversal of foreclosure judgment vacated the sale; FPD had no present right to evict; eviction order reversed and stayed pending foreclosure resolution
Whether Royalty Farms’ statements in court constituted judicial admissions terminating the lease	FPD: Royalty Farms admitted receiving termination notice and promised to vacate, showing lease terminated	Royalty Farms: statements were not admissions of legal effect and were promises, not facts	Court: statements were not judicial admissions of lease termination; cannot bind legal conclusion; insufficient to justify eviction
Whether trial court properly left possession with FPD while foreclosure appeal unresolved	FPD: maintaining status quo with purchaser in possession is appropriate	Royalty Farms: possession should not be awarded to a party whose purchase is voided on appeal	Court: because foreclosure reversal voided the sale, court erred in awarding possession to FPD; proceedings must be stayed until foreclosure resolved

Key Cases Cited

In re Estate of Rennick, 181 Ill.2d 395 (Ill. 1998) (defines judicial admissions)
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Earth Foods, Inc., 238 Ill.2d 455 (Ill. 2010) (parties cannot judicially admit conclusions of law)
Willett Co. v. Carpentier, 4 Ill.2d 407 (Ill. 1954) (reversal of decree restores parties to prior status)
Rosewood Corp. v. Fisher, 46 Ill.2d 249 (Ill. 1970) (validity of contract that is source of possession is relevant to right to possession)
Great Am. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Grivas, 137 Ill. App.3d 267 (Ill. App. Ct.) (order for eviction is final and appealable under Rule 304(a))
Washington Mut. Bank, F.A. v. Archer Bank, 385 Ill. App.3d 427 (Ill. App. Ct.) (trial court may modify orders that retained jurisdiction under Rule 304(a))
Fannie Mae v. Hicks, 77 N.E.3d 380 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016) (reversal of foreclosure judgment vacates sale made under that decree)
Sundie v. Haren, 253 So.2d 857 (Fla. 1971) (reversal of foreclosure requires new judicial sale to restore parties to original status)