BANKUNITED, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Successor in Interest From BankUnited, FSB, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SCOTT D. GIUSTI; VENTURA 21, INC.; UNKNOWN HEIRS AND LEGATEES OF SCOTT D. GIUSTI, if Any; UNKNOWN OWNERS; and NONRECORD CLAIMANTS, Defendants (Scott D. Giusti, Defendant-Appellant; Raavi, Inc., and West Town Bank & Trust, Respondents-Appellees).
No. 2-19-0522
Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District
June 15, 2020
2020 IL App (2d) 190522
JUSTICE McLAREN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Zenoff and Hudson concurred in the judgment and opinion.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Du Page County, No. 10-CH-4125; the Hon. James D. Orel, Judge, presiding. Judgment Affirmed. Counsel: Giovanni Raimondi, of RAI Law, LLC, of Chicago, for appellant. Nathan B. Grzegorek, Timothy P. Collins, and James A. Larson, of Plunkett Cooney, P.C., of Chicago, for appellee Raavi, Inc. No brief filed for other appellees.
¶ 1 This case concerns whether defendant, Scott D. Giusti, was properly served and, if he were not, whether he could obtain the relief he sought. Plaintiff, BankUnited National Association (BankUnited), successor in interest from BankUnited, FSB, filed a complaint to foreclose a mortgage against, inter alios, defendant. Defendant does not contend that he was not actually served. After defendant failed to appear, BankUnited moved for a default judgment. The court granted the motion and entered a default judgment of foreclosure and sale. BankUnited subsequently bought the foreclosed property at a sheriff‘s sale, and the court confirmed the report of sale. Shortly thereafter, Raavi, Inc. (Raavi), purchased the property from BankUnited.
¶ 2 More than seven years after the sale to Raavi, defendant filed a “Petition for Relief from Void Judgments,” arguing that the trial court did not obtain personal jurisdiction, because he had been served in Cook County without a court-appointed special-process server to serve in Cook County. Defendant also argued lack of personal jurisdiction because the summons did not identify defendant as “a defendant” and the summons was not “directed to anyone.” The court determined that Raavi‘s property rights were protected by
¶ 3 Defendant appeals, and we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
¶ 5 On July 23, 2010, BankUnited filed the foreclosure complaint against defendant. The property was commonly known as 646 Forum Drive, Roselle, Illinois, 60172. BankUnited issued summons for defendant. The summons was on a form provided by Du Page County. The case caption on the summons states “BankUnited, FSB v. Scott D. Giusti, et al.” A fifth page attached to the summons directed the summons be served on “Scott D. Giusti” at the address that was subject to foreclosure. Service was attempted at that address but the property was vacant. On August 2, 2010, David Dahl, an employee of Firefly Legal, Inc., served defendant by substitute service on his son at 766 Stonewall Court, Schaumburg, Illinois, 60173. BankUnited named defendant in the complaint.
¶ 6 On November 23, 2010, the trial court entered a default judgment and judgment of foreclosure against defendant. In March 2011, the property was sold at a
¶ 7 More than eight years after defendant was served and more than seven years after Raavi took title to the property, on September 14, 2018, defendant filed his petition to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale, pursuant to
“[t]he Court did not acquire personal jurisdiction over [him] because [he] was served in Cook County, Illinois and the Circuit Court did not appoint a special process server to serve process in Cook County. Additionally, the Summons did not identify [defendant] as a defendant and was not directed to anyone. [Further,] the lack of jurisdiction was apparent on the face of the record.”
¶ 8 Defendant asked the court to, inter alia, (1) quash service for defendant; (2) vacate all orders and judgments entered in the case as void ab initio; (3) find that the lack of personal jurisdiction was apparent on the face of the record; (4) find that defendant was the owner of the property; (5) grant him possession of the property and restitution from BankUnited and Raavi for the use and occupancy of the property or, if possession could not be restored to defendant, restitution for the value of the property on the date “this petition is granted,” plus the value of the use and occupancy of the property from April 14, 2011, through the date restitution is paid; and (6) grant him restitution of all profits derived from the property from BankUnited, Raavi, and West Town.
¶ 9 On December 4, 2018, Raavi filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
¶ 10 On May 21, 2019, the trial court granted Raavi and West Town‘s motion to dismiss. As to Raavi, the court stated that the protections afforded in
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
¶ 14 Defendant appeals the dismissal of his petition. For the following reasons, we conclude that dismissal was proper under
B. Personal Jurisdiction
¶ 16 Defendant argues that the foreclosure court lacked personal jurisdiction over him and the trial court erred by dismissing his petition to vacate. Defendant contends that the summons issued against him was “facially noncompliant” with
¶ 17 Where, as here, a voidness challenge is brought more than 30 days after a default judgment, it may be considered under
¶ 18 As stated by our supreme court:
“In order to have a valid judgment the court must have both jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litigation and jurisdiction over the parties. [Citation.] Personal jurisdiction may be acquired either by the party‘s making a general appearance or by service of process as statutorily directed. [Citation.] A judgment rendered by a court which fails to acquire jurisdiction over the parties is void and may be attacked and vacated at any time, either directly or collaterally. [Citations.]” In re Marriage of Verdung, 126 Ill. 2d 542, 547 (1989).
¶ 19 However, even if we assume that the judgment was void, the analysis does not end there. Rather, the dispositive question is whether Raavi, who is not a party to the foreclosure action, was a bona fide purchaser. Where the rights of innocent third-party purchasers have attached, a judgment can be collaterally attacked
“Unless lack of jurisdiction affirmatively appears from the record proper, the vacation or modification of an order or judgment pursuant to the provisions of this Section does not affect the right, title or interest in or to any real or personal property of any person, not a party to the original action, acquired for value after the entry of the order or judgment but before the filing of the petition, nor affect any right of any person not a party to the original action under any certificate of sale issued before the filing of the petition, pursuant to a sale based on the order or judgment.” (Emphasis added.)
735 ILCS 5/2-1401(e) (West 2018) .
¶ 20 In determining whether a lack of jurisdiction is apparent from the record, we must look to the whole record, which includes the pleadings, the return on the process, and the judgment of the court. Thill, 113 Ill. 2d at 313. A lack of jurisdiction is apparent from the record if it does not require inquiry beyond the face of the record. Id. at 314. Strict compliance with the statutes governing the service of process is required before a court will acquire personal jurisdiction over the person served. Sarkissian, 201 Ill. 2d at 109.
¶ 21 Defendant argues that the lack of personal jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the record due to the invalid summons. Defendant contends that the summons issued against him was “facially noncompliant” with
¶ 22 “Personal jurisdiction may be established either by service of process in accordance with statutory requirements or by a party‘s voluntary submission to the court‘s jurisdiction.” BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Mitchell, 2014 IL 116311, ¶ 18. Generally, a judgment rendered without service of process, absent a waiver of process or a general appearance by the defendant, is void regardless of whether the defendant had actual knowledge of the proceedings. Arch Bay Holdings, LLC-Series 2010B v. Perez, 2015 IL App (2d) 141117, ¶ 10. Accordingly, a foreclosure judgment entered without service of process is void. Id.
¶ 23 In Illinois, the use of summons is governed by statute and supreme court rules.
“The summons shall be issued under the seal of the court, tested in the name of the clerk, and signed with his name. It shall be dated on the date it is issued, shall be directed to each defendant, and shall bear the address and telephone number of the plaintiff or his attorney, and if service or notices of motions or filings by facsimile transmission will be
accepted, the telephone number of the facsimile machine of the plaintiff or his attorney.” (Emphasis added.)
Further,
“In all other cases the summons shall require each defendant to file his answer or otherwise file his appearance within 30 days after service, exclusive of the day of service (see
Rule 181(a) ), and shall be in substantially the following form:In the Circuit Court of the _______ Judicial Circuit,
_________ County, Illinois (Or, In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois)
A.B., C.D., etc. (naming all plaintiffs),
Plaintiffs
v. No. __________
H.J., K.L., etc. (naming all defendants),
Defendants
SUMMONS
To each defendant: ***.” (Emphasis added.)
¶ 24 Defendant argues that the summons was invalid because the caption did not identify the parties and he was not named following the line “To each Defendant:“.
¶ 25 A summons issued in violation of the statute and the rules is void and results in a lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Arch Bay Holdings, 2015 IL App (2d) 141117, ¶ 14. Our supreme court has stated that “a summons which does not name a person on its face and notify him to appear, is no summons at all, so far as the unnamed person is concerned.” Ohio Millers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Inter-Insurance Exchange of the Illinois Automobile Club, 367 Ill. 44, 56 (1937); see also Arch Bay Holdings, 2015 IL App (2d) 141117, ¶ 14.
¶ 26 For example, in Arch Bay Holdings, we held that a summons that failed to name the defendant on its face was invalid and, thus, the court lacked personal jurisdiction. Arch Bay Holdings, 2015 IL App (2d) 141117, ¶¶ 16, 19. In Ohio Millers Mutual, a summons that failed to name approximately 3000 people on its face was invalid. Ohio Millers Mutual, 367 Ill. at 45-46, 56. In Theodorakakis v. Kogut, 194 Ill. App. 3d 586, 588-89 (1990), the summons was invalid where a trust was designated with the wrong number, even though the body of the complaint contained the correct number.
¶ 27 However, the purpose of a summons is to “notify a party that an action has been commenced against him.” In re Application of the County Treasurer & ex officio County Collector, 307 Ill. App. 3d 350, 355 (1999). In determining whether a summons was sufficient to provide the opposing party with notice of the action, “we adhere to the principle that a court should not elevate form over substance, but should construe a summons liberally.” Id.
¶ 28 For example, in Application of County Treasurer, the appellate court held that a tax summons was sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction, even though the sheriff did not endorse the summons as required by state law. The court explained that, technical defects notwithstanding, the summons was valid because it “served its intended purpose—to notify [the respondent]” that his property was being sold. Id. Similarly, in Charter Bank & Trust of Illinois v. Novak, 218 Ill. App. 3d 548, 553 (1991), the appellate court held that a summons, minor defects notwithstanding, “adequately advised the defendant of what she needed to do in order to appear and defend,” and thus the defects were “no barrier to personal jurisdiction over the defendant.” Further, in MI Management, LLC v. Proteus Holdings, LLC, 2018 IL App (1st) 160972, ¶ 39, the appellate court held that deficiencies in garnishment summons that the judgment creditor served on the judgment debtors, which included failing to sign and notarize the affidavit and to sign the certificate, were technical, nonsubstantive defects that did not deprive the trial court of personal jurisdiction over judgment debtors. The court reasoned that the summons adequately notified the judgment debtors that action had been commenced against them. Id. ¶ 55.
¶ 29 According to the caption of the summons issued and filed in this case, “BankUnited, FSB” appears above the “v.” and “Scott D. Giusti, et al.” appears below the “v.” Defendant contends that, because the words “Plaintiff” and “Defendants” do not appear below the names of the parties, the summons does not identify who the parties are in the caption and thus this violates
¶ 30 To determine whether the alleged technical defects in the summons were so severe as to preclude the court from obtaining personal jurisdiction over defendant, we must place substance over form and ask whether the summons adequately notified defendant that an action had been commenced against him. MI Management, LLC, 2018 IL App (1st) 160972, ¶ 54. We determine that the summons served that function. At the outset, we note that defendant has not explained how any of the alleged defects frustrated his ability to understand that BankUnited had instituted foreclosure proceedings against him or what defendant needed to do to prepare and defend himself. It is difficult to imagine how the caption on the summons, stating “BankUnited, FSB, v. Scott D. Giusti, et al.,” could have possibly prevented defendant from understanding the meaning or significance of the summons: that BankUnited was the plaintiff and that defendant was the defendant. Further, we cannot determine that the alleged technical deficiency regarding the absence of defendant‘s name following “To Defendant:” defeated personal jurisdiction over him. There were only two names listed on the summons, and defendant would have known if he were the plaintiff. In addition, page five of the summons names defendant as a defendant to be served. Thus, the alleged defects in the summons did not deprive the trial court of personal jurisdiction
¶ 31 Next, defendant contends that a lack of personal jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the record because he was served in Cook County by a special process server who was not appointed by the court, in violation of
¶ 32 The special-process-server affidavit shows that substitute service of the summons and the complaint was made on defendant at 766 Stonewall Court in Schaumburg, Illinois, 60173. However, the affidavit does not indicate whether defendant was served in Cook or Du Page County. Thus, the affidavit does not establish a jurisdictional defect on its face. We reject defendant‘s argument that the record affirmatively shows that service took place in Cook County.
¶ 33 This case is similar to U.S. Bank National Ass‘n v. Rahman, 2016 IL App (2d) 150040. In Rahman, defendant was served in Hanover Park and Bartlett. Id. ¶ 19. There, because the addresses at which defendant was served had portions in both Du Page and Cook counties, we rejected the defendant‘s argument that the summons showed that service took place in Cook County. Id. ¶¶ 19, 38-39. We reasoned that the alleged defect was not apparent on the face of the record, because external materials would have been necessary to determine whether service occurred in Cook or Du Page County. Id. ¶¶ 38-39.
¶ 34 Similar to Rahman, BankUnited served defendant in Schaumburg, which has portions in both Du Page and Cook counties. To determine in which county BankUnited served defendant, outside materials are required. Therefore, the alleged defect is beyond the face of the record. See Thill, 113 Ill. 2d at 314 (a lack of jurisdiction apparent from the record may not be established by going beyond the face of the record); see also Rahman, 2016 IL App (2d) 150040, ¶ 39.
¶ 35 Defendant contends that the zip code 60173, as indicated on the special-process-server affidavit, exists entirely within the borders of Cook County. Defendant further asserts that, because the zip code is in Cook County, a lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the record. To support his argument, defendant cites a map of the area within the zip code, which shows that it is within Cook County. Defendant‘s citation of the map defeats his argument because it leads us beyond the face of the record. See Thill, 113 Ill. 2d at 314; see also Rahman, 2016 IL App (2d) 150040, ¶ 39 (“[I]t was impossible to determine in which county service occurred from the face of the affidavits—outside materials were necessary.“).
¶ 36 Defendant urges us to take judicial notice that the zip code 60173 exists within Cook County. Generally, courts may take judicial notice of facts that are commonly known or readily verifiable from sources of indisputable accuracy. Murdy v. Edgar, 103 Ill. 2d 384, 394 (1984). Here, however, the information defendant offers is not appropriate for judicial notice. Defendant fails to recognize that the “lack of jurisdiction [must] affirmatively appear[ ] from the record proper.” See
¶ 37 The bona fide purchaser protections under
¶ 38 The record indicates that West Town and Raavi were in the same position. West Town‘s mortgage was supported by consideration and secured in good faith before the petition was filed. Therefore, West Town was entitled to bona fide-purchaser status and the protections afforded by
¶ 39 Raavi and West Town argue that the trial court properly determined that defendant‘s petition was properly dismissed based on laches. Laches is an affirmative defense that is equitable, and it requires the party raising it to show that there was an unreasonable delay in bringing an action and that the delay caused prejudice. Rahman, 2016 IL App (2d) 150040, ¶ 44. Defendant argues that laches does not apply when a judgment is void, because a void judgment may be attacked at any time. Although we need not address the merits as to whether laches applies here, we note that there were two subsequent sales of the property to bona fide purchasers. Defendant implies that there is no limit to the number of transfers of title that a present bona fide purchaser must examine to determine if a void order was entered in proceedings that did not directly result in the transfer to the present bona fide purchaser. There are already equitable exceptions for granting relief from a void judgment, including the one that was the basis for the denial of relief in this case. See West Suburban Bank v. Advantage Financial Partners, LLC, 2014 IL App (2d) 131146, ¶¶ 26-27 (discussing laches in the context of mortgage foreclosures). Although we do not determine if laches applies to this case, we agree with the court in West Suburban that laches can preclude relief in an appropriate case where prejudice is demonstrated.
¶ 40 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
III. CONCLUSION
¶ 42 The judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County is affirmed.
¶ 43 Affirmed.