U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Coe, 98 N.E.3d 399

Plaintiff U.S. Bank filed a foreclosure action in April 2012 against mortgagor Derrick Coe (and co-defendant Kimberly Wilson).
Defendants claimed plaintiff never sent the statutorily required grace period notice under section 15-1502.5 (Homeowner Protection Act) prior to filing suit.
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of the grace period notice; the circuit court denied the motion and later confirmed the foreclosure sale on June 8, 2016.
The Homeowner Protection Act (735 ILCS 5/15-1502.5) contained an express repeal provision: the Section was repealed effective July 1, 2016.
Defendants appealed on July 7, 2016, relying on this court’s earlier decision in Adeyiga that absent proof of a grace-period notice, the matter must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
The appellate court considered whether the Act’s express repeal extinguished defendants’ ability to obtain relief under the now-repealed statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether repeal of §15-1502.5 bars defendants’ claim that no grace-period notice was sent	Repeal extinguishes any relief under the Act; no saving clause preserves pending claims	The notice requirement creates a vested right or implicates due process, so repeal should not bar relief	Repeal bars relief: §15-1502.5 was a special remedial statute with an express repeal and no saving clause, so pending claims under it cannot be granted after repeal
Whether the grace-period notice requirement created a vested right	Repeal valid because the Act was a statutory remedial creation, not a vested property right	The notice is nonwaivable and implicates due process, so it creates a vested entitlement	No vested right: the Act provided a special statutory remedy only; repeal can abrogate it
Whether sanctions under Ill. S. Ct. R. 375 were warranted for bringing the appeal	Appeal frivolous because counsel should have known the Act contained an express repeal since enactment	Defendants acted in good faith; the issue was novel and was argued; reply raised vested-rights theory	Court declined to impose sanctions, finding the appeal brought in good faith despite weak posture

Shelton v. City of Chicago, 42 Ill. 2d 468 (1969) (express repeal of special remedial statute defeats pending statutory causes of action)
Isenstein v. Rosewell, 106 Ill. 2d 301 (1985) (absent a saving clause, repeal destroys future effectiveness of remedial statutes and divests right to proceed)
People ex rel. Eitel v. Lindheimer, 371 Ill. 367 (1939) (unconditional repeal of special remedial statute without saving clause stops pending actions where repeal finds them)