U.S. Bank Trust National Association v. Junior
57 N.E.3d 588
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- JPMorgan Chase filed a foreclosure complaint Dec 30, 2013, attaching copies of the mortgage and note (the note showed indorsements and an indorsement in blank to JPMorgan).
- Defendants (pro se) repeatedly sought discovery (original note, servicing records) and filed various filings challenging standing and jurisdiction, including fringe constitutional arguments.
- The trial court entered default judgment and a foreclosure judgment (Aug 8, 2014); the property sold at judicial sale (Mar 20, 2015) and the sale was confirmed (July 14, 2015). JPMorgan moved to substitute U.S. Bank as plaintiff and later recorded an assignment of the judgment to U.S. Bank.
- On appeal defendants argued Illinois foreclosure procedures violated due process by permitting foreclosure without production of original loan documents and raised a facial constitutional challenge for the first time.
- The appellate majority affirmed, holding defendants forfeited their constitutional challenge for failing to comply with Supreme Court Rule 19 and finding Rule 113 and the Foreclosure Law permit attaching copies of the note as prima facie proof; a dissent argued Rule 113(c) affidavits were missing and would require reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether foreclosure procedure violates due process by not requiring original note in court | Foreclosure Law and Rule 113 permit copies attached to complaint as prima facie evidence; originals not required | Due process requires production of original loan documents before foreclosure | Held for plaintiff: Illinois law does not require production of the original note in open court; copies attached suffice |
| Whether plaintiff complied with Supreme Court Rule 113 prove‑up requirements | JPMorgan attached copy of note with indorsements to complaint and complied with Rule 113(b) re: attaching note copy | Defendants (and dissent) contend Rule 113(c) prove‑up affidavit was not in record and Rule 113 compliance was required before judgment | Majority: defendants did not raise Rule 113 compliance below; issue not argued and record does not show challenge; majority treats complaint as complying with Rule 113(b). Dissent: would reverse for lack of Rule 113(c) affidavit |
| Whether defendants may raise constitutional challenge to Foreclosure Law on appeal without notifying AG under Rule 19 | Plaintiff: constitutional challenge not raised below and Rule 19 notice was not given; issue forfeited | Defendants: may challenge statute as unconstitutional now (due process) | Held for plaintiff: challenge forfeited for failure to comply with Rule 19 and for untimely presentation; court declines to permit late notice |
| Whether pro se appellants’ briefing defects affect consideration | Plaintiff points to briefing failures and lack of record citations | Defendants submitted noncompliant brief and did not supply transcript/appendix | Held: pro se status affords no leniency; appellate brief deficiencies justify limited consideration but court proceeded to address merits in part |
Key Cases Cited
- First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 155 Ill. App. 3d 664 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (longstanding precedent that attaching copies of mortgage and note to complaint can establish prima facie proof in foreclosure)
- Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (Ill. 1984) (appellate court presumes trial court acted in conformity with law when record does not show error)
- Bright v. Dicke, 166 Ill. 2d 204 (Ill. 1995) (Illinois Supreme Court rules have force of law and must be enforced)
- Village of Lake Villa v. Stokovich, 211 Ill. 2d 106 (Ill. 2004) (trial and appellate courts may decline to address constitutional challenges where Rule 19 notice was not provided)
- 1010 Lake Shore Ass’n v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2015 IL 118372 (Ill. 2015) (issues not raised in trial court are generally forfeited on appeal)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. McCluskey, 2013 IL 115469 (Ill. 2013) (procedural posture in foreclosure: final judgment and order approving sale are appealable final orders)