Urban Partnership Bank v. Ragdale
73 N.E.3d 1284
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Urban Partnership Bank (assignee of FDIC/ ShoreBank) sued to foreclose a mortgage on 4601 S. Vincennes after Nickole Ragsdale defaulted on a $1,000,000 loan.
- Plaintiff attempted personal service at the subject property multiple times in June–August 2012; servers reported occupants avoiding service and later that the property appeared vacant.
- Plaintiff filed a motion for alternative service under 735 ILCS 5/2-203.1 in November 2012, supported by process-server affidavits and a due-diligence affidavit by Nicole Hoffman.
- The circuit court approved alternative service (posting at the property and mailing) in February 2013; the alias summons was posted/mailed in May 2014, default was entered July 31, 2014, and the judicial sale was confirmed February 2015.
- Ragsdale filed a 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 petition in June 2015 to quash service and vacate the default judgment, arguing plaintiff failed to make a diligent inquiry (she and her husband had moved to Burr Ridge in Jan 2012 and husband was served there in Dec 2012).
- The circuit court denied relief; on appeal the Appellate Court reversed, holding the due-diligence affidavit did not show the required diligent inquiry and therefore service (and resulting judgment) was void.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alternative service complied with section 2-203.1’s "diligent inquiry" requirement | Hoffman's affidavit and process-server affidavits showed reasonable efforts and inability to locate Ragsdale | The due-diligence affidavit contained no facts showing any meaningful investigation into alternate addresses (no inquiry after discovering vacancy) | The affidavit was fatally deficient; plaintiff failed to show diligent inquiry, so alternative service was improper |
| Whether court obtained personal jurisdiction absent proper service | Alternative service order and subsequent posting/mail constituted valid service | Lack of compliant due-diligence means no personal service; court lacked jurisdiction | Court lacked personal jurisdiction; default judgment void |
| Whether affidavits submitted later can cure defects in the original motion for alternative service | Later affidavits (e.g., ELJ affidavit) demonstrate diligence | The later affidavit was not part of the November 2012 motion and cannot retroactively cure the earlier deficient affidavit | Later affidavit not considered; it cannot cure the original defective submission |
| Whether the default judgment may be attacked after time elapsed as void | Judgment is final unless timely attacked under 2-1401 | A judgment rendered without personal jurisdiction is void and may be attacked at any time via 2-1401 | The void-judgment rule applies; 2-1401 petition properly used and relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of Education, 201 Ill. 2d 95 (2002) (judgment may be attacked as void; two-year timing rule for 2-1401 does not apply to voidness claims)
- State Bank of Lake Zurich v. Thill, 113 Ill. 2d 294 (1986) (judgment entered without personal jurisdiction is void even if defendant had actual knowledge)
- Mugavero v. Kenzler, 317 Ill. App. 3d 162 (2000) (due-diligence affidavit showing virtually no investigation is insufficient for alternative service)
- People ex rel. Weller v. Harrison, 348 Ill. App. 3d 976 (2004) (affidavit adequate where it detailed searches of court records and multiple service attempts without finding another address)
- City of Chicago v. Leakas, 6 Ill. App. 3d 20 (1972) (‘‘due inquiry’’ requires an honest, well-directed effort to ascertain defendant’s whereabouts)
- In re Marriage of Schmitt, 321 Ill. App. 3d 360 (2001) (courts do not favor those who evade service; alternative service standards applied strictly)