Royalty Farms, LLC v. Forest Preserve District
92 N.E.3d 943
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Royalty Properties executed a mortgage to Amcore to buy a 400‑acre farm; Royalty Farms claimed a lease of part of the farm signed in 2007.
- Amcore’s assets (including the loan) were transferred through the FDIC to BMO Harris, and later BMO Harris’s interest in related documents was sold to the Forest Preserve District (FPD).
- Circuit court granted FPD summary judgment in the foreclosure action, approved a sheriff’s sale at which FPD was the high bidder, and the sale was later appealed by Royalty Properties.
- While the foreclosure judgment was on appeal, Royalty Farms sued FPD for breach of the alleged lease; FPD counterclaimed for eviction (count III) and the circuit court ordered Royalty Farms to vacate.
- The appellate court reversed the foreclosure judgment in BMO Harris, finding material factual issues and remanding the foreclosure case; this reversal called into question FPD’s ownership interest derived from the sale.
- The appellate court here held that reversal of the foreclosure judgment voided the sale, so FPD had no present right to evict; eviction was reversed and eviction proceedings were stayed pending final resolution of the foreclosure action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(a) to review eviction orders | Royalty Farms: orders of Mar 4 and May 19 were final as to eviction and included Rule 304(a) language | FPD: orders did not finally dispose of separate claims so appeal improper | Court held it had jurisdiction: eviction orders finally disposed of separate claim and Rule 304(a) language made them appealable |
| Whether Royalty Farms made judicial admissions entitling FPD to eviction | Royalty Farms admitted receipt of termination notice and said it would vacate by 12/31/15 | FPD: those statements show lease terminated and justify eviction | Court held admissions did not establish legal termination; statements were factual/ promissory, not admissions of legal effect |
| Effect of reversal of foreclosure judgment on FPD’s right to evict | Royalty Farms: reversal voids sale and FPD has no present ownership or right to evict | FPD: relied on foreclosure sale and sheriff’s deed to assert landlord rights | Held reversal of foreclosure judgment voided the sale; FPD has no present eviction right; new sale required if foreclosure later reinstated |
| Whether possession may be stayed pending foreclosure resolution | Royalty Farms: possession should not be given to FPD while ownership unresolved | FPD: should remain in possession to preserve status quo | Court stayed eviction proceedings and reversed possession order; preserved status quo but denied FPD permanent possession until foreclosure finally resolved |
Key Cases Cited
- Willett Co. v. Carpentier, 4 Ill.2d 407 (Ill. 1954) (reversal of decree restores parties to pre‑decree status)
- Thompson v. Davis, 297 Ill. 11 (Ill. 1921) (reversal of foreclosure decrees requires restoration of parties’ prior rights)
- Rosewood Corp. v. Fisher, 46 Ill.2d 249 (Ill. 1970) (validity of underlying contract central to right to possession)
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Earth Foods, Inc., 238 Ill.2d 455 (Ill. 2010) (legal conclusions are not subject to judicial admission)
- 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 if foreclosure later proved)