Background - In October 2012 Wrenn (C & S Investments) purchased the 2011 tax certificate for Lots 5 & 6, Block 2, Village of Kirkwood, Warren County, and extended redemption to October 22, 2015. - H & G Construction purchased 2012–2013 taxes; Wrenn filed a petition for a tax deed in April 2015. - The circuit court ordered issuance of a tax deed on October 26, 2015; Wrenn paid H & G’s taxes on October 27, 2015, and the county clerk issued and Wrenn recorded the tax deed on October 29, 2015. - On March 14, 2016 (more than four months after recording the deed), Wrenn filed a motion seeking a sale in error, alleging post-sale destruction and uninhabitability. - The Warren County Treasurer moved to dismiss, arguing Wrenn lacked statutory authority to seek a sale in error after issuance/recording of the tax deed; the trial court granted dismissal and the appellate court affirmed. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wrenn) | Defendant's Argument (Tate) | Held | |---|---:|---:|---:| | Whether a tax deed holder may pursue a sale in error under 35 ILCS 200/21-310 after issuance/recording of the tax deed | Wrenn argued he could pursue a sale in error within the five-year limitations window because the post-sale destruction ground arose and Burroughs/earlier cases permitted sale-in-error actions within that limitations period | Tate argued section 21-310 allows only the county collector or holder of a certificate of purchase to seek a sale in error, and once the certificate is exchanged for a deed the remedy is limited and the deed is effectively incontestable except on narrow 2-1401 grounds | Court held Wrenn could not seek a sale in error after he had exchanged his certificate for and recorded a tax deed; dismissal affirmed. | | Whether the statutory grounds for sale in error are exclusive and preclude using sale in error to undo an issued tax deed | Wrenn implicitly sought to apply sale-in-error grounds post-deed | Tate argued the statute’s plain language and scheme show the grounds and eligible applicants are exclusive and deeds are intended to be final | Court held the statutory scheme is exclusive and finality of tax deeds is protected by section 22-45—sale in error cannot undo an issued tax deed. | | Whether relief from an issued tax deed is available outside direct appeal (e.g., via sale in error) | Wrenn attempted to use sale in error instead of direct appeal or 2-1401 petition | Tate maintained relief is limited to direct appeal or 2-1401 grounds specified in section 22-45 | Court held relief against a tax deed is limited to direct appeal or specified 2-1401 grounds; sale in error is not an available post-deed remedy. | | Whether allowing post-deed sale in error would be consistent with the policy of stability and marketability of tax titles | Wrenn argued statute of limitations and prior cases supported post-deed actions | Tate argued permitting post-deed sale in error would undermine finality and marketability of tax deeds | Court held policy favors finality/marketability; permitting Wrenn’s action would undermine those goals. | ### Key Cases Cited La Salle Nat’l Bank as Trustee v. Hoffman, 1 Ill. App. 3d 470 (1971) (rationale for sale-in-error relief protecting taxbuyers from erroneous or void tax sales) Village of Morgan Park v. Knopf, 111 Ill. App. 571 (1904) (certificate of purchase must be produced to obtain tax deed) S.I. Securities v. Powless, 403 Ill. App. 3d 426 (2010) (section 22-45 limits challenges to tax deeds and promotes valid, merchantable tax title) In re Application of the County Treasurer, 92 Ill. 2d 400 (1982) (Tax Code changes intended to increase stability of tax deeds) DG Enterprises, LLC–Will Tax, LLC v. Cornelius, 2015 IL 118975 (Illinois Supreme Court) (upholding finality and marketability of tax deeds) White Way Electric Sign & Maintenance Co. v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 368 Ill. 482 (1938) (public policy favoring stability of real estate titles) * Baker v. Loves Park Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 61 Ill. 2d 119 (1975) (stability of real estate titles is paramount)