Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mundie
53 N.E.3d 1001
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Wells Fargo filed a foreclosure complaint using the statutory form, alleging capacity as “Mortgagee under 735 ILCS 5/15-1208,” and attached the mortgage and the note (the note was endorsed in blank).
- Defendants Ian and Jacqueline Mundie moved to dismiss under Ill. Code Civ. P. § 2-615, arguing the complaint failed to plead Wells Fargo’s capacity to sue with the specificity required by 735 ILCS 5/15-1504(a)(3)(N).
- The trial court denied the § 2-615 motion; defendants answered and raised affirmative defenses including lack of standing and lack of privity; those defenses were withdrawn after plaintiff produced the original note.
- Plaintiff later obtained summary judgment and a judgment of foreclosure; the property was sold and the sale confirmed. Defendants appealed the denial of the § 2-615 motion.
- The sole legal dispute on appeal: whether alleging plaintiff was the “mortgagee” (with attached mortgage and endorsed note) satisfies the Foreclosure Law’s pleading requirement to show capacity to sue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alleging capacity as “mortgagee” satisfies § 15-1504(a)(3)(N)’s requirement to plead the capacity in which the plaintiff brings a foreclosure | Wells Fargo argued alleging it was the mortgagee under § 15-1208 (and attaching mortgage and endorsed note) sufficiently pleads capacity as the legal holder/party entitled to enforce | Mundie argued § 15-1504(a)(3)(N) requires specifying whether plaintiff is holder, pledgee, agent, trustee, etc.; “mortgagee” is too vague and does not show interest in the loan | Court held that alleging plaintiff is a “mortgagee” under § 15-1208, together with attaching the mortgage and an endorsed note, satisfies the statutory pleading requirement and survives a § 2-615 dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Vitro v. Mihelcic, 209 Ill. 2d 76 (statutory § 2-615 motion tests legal sufficiency of complaint)
- Canel v. Topinka, 212 Ill. 2d 311 (pleadings construed in plaintiff’s favor on § 2-615 review)
- Tedrick v. Community Resource Center, Inc., 235 Ill. 2d 155 (dismissal under § 2-615 only when no set of facts can entitle plaintiff to relief)
- Anderson v. Vanden Dorpel, 172 Ill. 2d 399 (Illinois is a fact-pleading state; conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 408 Ill. App. 3d 564 (de novo review of § 2-615 dismissal)
- Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Barnes, 406 Ill. App. 3d 1 (alleging "the mortgagee" can satisfy statutory definition and standing)