IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE COUNTY TREASURER AND EX-OFFICIO COUNTY COLLECTOR OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, FOR ORDER OF JUDGMENT AND SALE AGAINST REAL ESTATE RETURNED DELINQUENT FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF GENERAL TAXES FOR THREE OR MORE YEARS (COUNTY OF COOK, D/B/A COOK COUNTY LAND BANK AUTHORITY, Petitioner-Appellee, v. CAPITAL EQUITY LAND TRUST #2140215 AND HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC, Respondents-Appellants).
Nos. 1-21-1511 & 1-21-1512 (cons.)
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
December 30, 2022 Filing Date
2022 IL App (1st) 211511
JUSTICE
SIXTH DIVISION. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 20 COTD 001321, 20 COTD 001369. The Honorable Nichole Patton, Judge, Presiding.
OPINION
¶ 1 Respondents Capital Equity Land Trust #2140215 (Capital Equity Trust) and Holdings Group, LLC (Holdings Group) appeal the circuit court of Cook County‘s denial of their objections against the issuance of tax deeds and the issuance of tax deeds related to two real estate parcels located in Harvey, Illinois. On appeal, respondents contend that the circuit court erred in denying their objections to the issuance of tax deeds for the parcels and by finding strict compliance with
BACKGROUND
¶ 2 ¶ 3 This case involves real estate improved with a single story commercial building located in Harvey, Illinois. The building sits on two lots with separate property index numbers: parcel 1 with a property index number (PIN) of 29-29-206-020-0000 (parcel 1) and parcel 2 with a PIN of 29-29-206-024-0000 (parcel 2).
¶ 4 The record reveals that on July 17, 2019, the Cook County Treasurer sold the parcels at a scavenger tax sale via a “no cash bid” to Cook County Land Bank (Land Bank). Certificates of purchase number 19S-0003087 for parcel 1 and 19S-0003088 for parcel 2 were issued to the Land Bank on October 28, 2019, indicating that the delinquent tax years for the parcels were 2015-2017. Subsequently on November 20, 2019, the Land Bank filed a notice of extension for both parcels, extending the redemption period to April 30, 2020. On November 26, 2019, the Land Bank filed section 22-5 take notices with the county clerk; parcel 1 was identified as having a street address of 3256 Ridge Road and parcel 2 was identified as having a street address of 17100 Halsted Street per the property‘s tax records. The record owner of the parcels was listed as Capital Equity Trust and the property manager was listed as Holdings Group. The record also contains an assignment of the parcels to Cook County d/b/a Cook County Land Bank Authority on December 2, 2019.
¶ 6 Section 22-10 take notices for the parcels, dated May 26, 2020, were mailed to the following persons: Monty S. Boatright (Boatright), as trustee of the Capital Equity Land Trust #2140215, at parcel 1‘s address; Capital Equity Trust at 17100 S. Halsted in Harvey; unknown owners and occupants at parcel 1‘s address; and Boatright at three additional addresses: 4653 N. Milwaukee Avenue in Chicago, 5602 N. Canfield Avenue in Chicago, and 17100 S. Halsted. The record indicates that a certificate of publication for parcel 1 from the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin was filed on June 12, 2020, which indicated that the take notice was published in the newspaper on June 8, 9 and 11, 2020, and placed on the statewide public notice website. Two affidavits from the special process server indicated that service was attempted on Boatright and unknown owners and occupants by certified mail sent to parcel 1 on June 11, 2020, and on Capital Equity Trust through the Illinois Secretary of State on June 9, 2020. The special process server attempted personal service of the take notice at 17100 S. Halsted and 3256 Ridge Road, but found that the property was vacant and boarded up. The process service did serve Boatright personally at the Milwaukee address on May 29, 2020, and again on June 18, 2020. Notices sent to the Halsted address via certified mail were returned to petitioner with a note that the property was vacant and the mail was unable to be forwarded, while notices sent to parcel 1 were returned with a stamp indicating “no such number,” “unable to forward.” Receipt for notices sent to Boatright at the Canfield and Milwaukee addresses were returned to the circuit court.1
¶ 7 The Land Bank‘s applications for tax deeds for both parcels were filed on December 21, 2020, and indicated that the name and address of the party in whose name the taxes were last assessed per the most recent tax collector‘s warrant books on the date notice was required by statute was Capital Equity Trust at the Halsted address. A commitment for title insurance for the parcels dated January 16, 2020, was also attached to the application, showing the owner of record as Capital Equity Trust. The title report also showed that there were proceedings in case number 18 M6 3525 filed by the City of Harvey based on abandonment of the property.2
¶ 8 The cases were subsequently set for prove-up on January 4, 2021, via Zoom. The record indicates that notice of the hearing was sent to Boatright and unknown owners and occupants at both parcel addresses, Capital Equity Trust and Boatright at the Halsted address, and Boatright at the Canfield and Milwaukee addresses. The record indicates that the matter was subsequently continued to January 21, 2021.
¶ 9 On January 21, 2021, Capital Equity Trust filed its appearance and later filed its objections to the order for tax deed on February 18, 2021, amended on April 6,
¶ 10 The Land Bank responded that it and Cook County were one and the same and that it was the holder of the certifications of purchase when the section 22-5 take notices and notices of extension were sent out. Additionally, the Land Bank stated that it had statutory authority to bid at Cook County tax sale auctions. It further responded that property location was correct based on the tax records, which was all it was required to use, and that it was the property owner‘s duty and obligation to correct any incorrect information that the Cook County Treasurer listed. The Land Bank argued that it was justified in relying on the County records and that it complied with sections 22-5, 22-10 and 22-25 especially since all of the other information in the notices was correct.
¶ 11 The circuit court heard argument on Capital Equity‘s objections on May 4, 2021. While acknowledging that the address was incorrect, it nonetheless ruled that section 22-5 only required the tax deed petitioner to examine the county warrant books to obtain the name and address for the last taxpayer of record. The court also ruled that Cook County and the Land Bank were one and the same, so the subsequent assignment of the certificates of purchase was just for purposes of cleaning up the name listed in the certificates of purchase. Capital Equity Trust‘s objections were denied.
¶ 12 On June 15, 2021, Holdings Group filed its appearance and filed its objections on July 15, 2021. Its objections were the same as those raised by Capital Equity Trust, and included exhibits showing the “correct” address for the parcels, including portions of pleadings filed by the City of Harvey in case number 18 M6 3525. The circuit court denied Holdings Group‘s objections for the same reasons it denied Capital Equity Trust‘s objections and further found that the City of Harvey was not a party entitled to receive notice in the tax deed proceeding.
¶ 13 On October 21, 2021, the circuit court entered orders directing the Cook County Clerk to issue tax deeds for the parcels to the Land Bank. Respondents filed their notices of appeal on November 18, 2021, and the cases were subsequently consolidated. On October 21, 2021, the circuit court entered orders directing the Cook County Clerk to issue tax deeds for the parcels to the Land Bank. Respondents filed their notices of appeal on November 18, 2021, and the cases were subsequently consolidated.
ANALYSIS
¶ 15 On appeal, respondents contend that the circuit court erred in denying their objections to the issuance of tax deeds for the parcels by finding strict compliance with
A. Applicable Statutory Provisions and Law
¶ 17 The Property Tax Code (Code) (
¶ 18 Article 22 of the Property Tax Code (
¶ 19 The legislature intended a tax deed, once issued, to be virtually incontestable except by direct appeal. S.I. Securities, 403 Ill. App. 3d at 429. The legislature‘s intent was to provide a tax buyer with a new and independent title, free and clear from all previous titles and claims of every kind, and assurance to the tax buyer that his title and rights to the property would be unimpaired. Id. Section 22-75 provides that a tax deed executed by the county clerk is prima facie evidence that the property was subject to taxation; the taxes or special assessments were not paid; the property was advertised for sale; the property was sold for taxes or special assessments; the sale was conducted in the manner required by law; the property was not redeemed within the time provided by law; and the grantee in the deed was the purchaser or assignee of the purchaser.
¶ 20 With respect to notice and tax deeds specifically, it has been held that such notice provisions are to be rigidly enforced. Gage v. Bani, 141 U.S. 344, 351 (1891); In re Application of County Collector (Dream Sites), 356 Ill. App. 3d 668, 670 (2005). The notice must contain every essential statutory element and if it omits even one, the deed issued pursuant to that notice will be void. Dream Sites, 356 Ill. App. 3d at 670. The tax buyer must strictly comply with the statutory notice requirements without regard to whether any owner, inter alia, was misled by the defective notice; the courts presume prejudice to the owner. Id. The determination of whether the notice satisfied all the statutory requirements is a question of law and we need not defer to the trial court‘s findings on the issue. Id. at 671.
B. Respondents’ Arguments on Appeal
1. The Section 22-5 Take Notices
¶ 23 Respondents’ first two issues on appeal concern what they believe to be fatal defects with the Land Bank‘s section 22-5 take notice for parcel 1 that resulted in less than strict compliance with the statute as required by section 22-40 of the Code. Specifically, they argue that the Land Bank was not the holder of the certificates of purchase when the take notices were sent and further that the take notice for parcel 1 included a non-existent address.
¶ 24 We begin by noting that only respondent Capital Equity Trust has standing to contest the section 22-5 take notices and not Holdings Group. Section 22-5 requires the purchaser to “serve the party in whose name the taxes are last assessed as shown by the most recent tax collector‘s warrant books.”
¶ 25 Next, we address whether the section 22-5 notice was invalid based on respondent‘s argument that the Land Bank was not the holder of the certificates of purchase when the notices were sent. Respondent contends that the Land Bank did not become the holder of the certificates of purchase until the assignment was made by Cook County on December 2, 2019, which was after the November 26, 2019, take notices were sent. We disagree.
¶ 26 Strict compliance with section 22-5 is necessary in order for a purchaser to receive a tax deed. In re Application of Skidmore, 2018 IL App (2d) 170369, ¶ 10. Whether an action complies with the Code is a question of statutory construction. Id. ¶ 8. We review questions of statutory construction de novo. Oswald v. Hamer, 2018 IL 122203, ¶ 9.
¶ 27 Section 22-5 of the Code provides that in order to seek a tax deed after the tax sale, the tax purchaser must deliver a “Notice of sale and redemption rights” to the county clerk to be given to the party in whose name the taxes were last assessed.
¶ 28 Respondent‘s claim that the Land Bank was not the holder of the certificates of purchase when the take notices were sent on November 26, 2019, is contradicted by the record. Our review of the initial certificates of purchase for the parcels reveals that they were issued to “Cook County Land Bank” on October 28, 2019. The subsequent assignment dated December 2, 2019, states that the certificates of purchase were assigned to “County of Cook, D/B/A Cook County Land Bank Authority,” signed by Toni Preckwinkle, Cook County Board President. We take judicial notice that the Land Bank was formed by the Cook County Board by ordinance in January 2013, and is a unit of Cook County government, as listed on its website, www.cookcountylandbank.org/about/about-us/. See Leach v. Department of Employment Security, 2020 IL App (1st) 190299, ¶ 44 (information on websites and in public records are sufficiently reliable such that judicial notice may be taken); Kopnick v. JL Woode Management Company, LLC, 2017 IL App (1st) 152054, ¶ 26 (information on a municipality‘s public website is subject to judicial notice). As such, it is clear that the Cook County Land Bank referenced in the certificates of purchase is one and the same as the County of Cook, d/b/a Cook County Land Bank Authority referenced in the assignment. While we are unsure why the assignment took place when the Land Bank already held the certificates of purchase, it does not change the fact that the parties are one and the same. We therefore find no error in the circuit court‘s conclusion that the two parties are the same. Accordingly, the section 22-5 notices were sufficient in that respect.
¶ 30 In response, the Land Bank contends that the address listed in the tax records was 3256 Ridge Road, and further that it was entitled to rely on the address as listed in the tax records when completing its section 22-5 notice.
¶ 31 In this case, the Land Bank listed the address for parcel 1 as 3256 Ridge Road, Harvey, Illinois. We take judicial notice that for parcel 1, having the PIN 29-29-206-020-0000, the address is listed as 3256 Ridge Road, Harvey, Illinois on the following government websites: the Cook County Assessor, https://www.cookcountyassessor.com/pin/29292060200000; the Cook County Clerk recordings, https://crs.cookcountyclerkil.gov/Search/ResultbyAddress?id1=29292060200000; and the Cook County Treasurer, https://cookcountytreasurer.com. In Illinois, all three agencies play a role in the collection and record-keeping functions of the taxing process. See Bishop v. Pollution Control Board, 235 Ill. App. 3d 925, 932 (1992); Scott v. City of Chicago, 2015 IL App (1st) 140570, ¶ 12. Although these cases are not tax deed cases, they do involve strict compliance with pre-suit notice provisions and a determination of what constitutes “authentic” tax records. Additionally, the record contains a title commitment for parcel 1 which further indicated that the address tied to the applicable PIN was 3256 Ridge Road. We therefore conclude that the address for parcel 1 with the PIN 29-29-206-020-0000 is 3256 Ridge Road based on the official records of those offices charged with designating such. We do so despite respondent‘s reliance on the address as listed in the suit filed by the City of Harvey, which is not an official designation of the property address related to the applicable PIN. Because the section 22-5 notice properly listed the address as designated in the official government records, we find that the Land Bank strictly complied with the Code.
2. Notices of Extension of the Redemption Period
¶ 33 Respondents further contend that the Land Bank‘s notices of extension of the redemption period violated section 21-385 of the Code because the notices were sent prior to the Land Bank acquiring the certificates of purchase by assignment from Cook County. As discussed above, the Land Bank was the initial holder of the certificates of purchase, thus it held them at all relevant times the notices of extension were sent. Thus, respondents’ argument is without merit.
3. Incorrect Address
¶ 35 Respondents’ argument that the Land Bank listed an incorrect, non-existent address on its notices pursuant to
4. Failure to Serve an Interested Party
¶ 37 Having rejected respondents’ assertions that the notices were defective, we turn to their contention that the Land Bank failed to identify and serve a party with a record interest, namely the City of Harvey with respect to parcel 1. Respondents maintain that because the City of Harvey filed a lawsuit against the property owners in 2018 which was disclosed to the Land Bank on the title commitment issued for the subject property, the City of Harvey should have been served with notice of the tax deed proceedings as a party with a record interest. Respondents also note that the City of Harvey was listed as a party with a record interest as to one of the parcels but not the other.
¶ 38 Respondents argue that by not serving the take notices on the City of Harvey, the Land Bank failed to strictly comply with the Code. Respondents are correct that under Illinois law, a tax deed petitioner must exercise due diligence to locate and notify parties interested in the property.
¶ 39 This court has previously held that a tax purchaser has failed to act with minimal diligence if he has not made reasonable efforts to notify all persons whose interest may reasonably be inferred from the public records regarding the property‘s ownership. Id.; In re Application of the County Treasurer (HomeSide), 347 Ill. App. 3d 769, 777 (2004); Payne v. Williams, 91 Ill. App. 3d 336, 341-42 (1980). Moreover, a party who has certain rights under the Code is an interested party entitled to notice, even where those rights do not include the right to redeem. In re County Treasurer and ex officio County Collector of Lake County (Muskat), 403 Ill. App. 3d 985, 991 (2010). The Code defines “nonownership interest” as “any interest in real property other than a contingent interest and other than an ownership interest as defined in this Section, including without limitation a mortgage, equitable mortgage or other interest in the nature of a mortgage, leasehold, easement, or lien.”
¶ 40 We disagree, however, with respondents’ contention that the City of Harvey had a recorded interest in the property. Respondents have not cited, nor have we found, any caselaw to support their theory that a lis pendens filed by a municipality is a recorded interest in property. Lis pendens means pending suit. Taylor v. Lanahan, 73 Ill. App. 3d 829, 831 (1979). The purpose of the lis pendens doctrine
It bears mentioning that the suit filed by the City of Harvey was against the property owners for building code violations at the property. However, while the case was pending when the tax sale notice and the tax deed petition were filed, there was no judgment entered in the case that would serve as a lien attached to the property that would entitle the city to notice under section 22-10.
¶ 41 Our research indicates that the designation of “interested parties” for purposes of determining whether notice was required under the Code has been previously applied to the following: subsequent tax certificate purchasers of property (In re Application of County Collector (Scott), 391 Ill. App. 3d 656, 662 (2009)); mortgagees and mortgage servicers of property (Glohry, 2011 IL App (1st) 101966, ¶¶ 49-52); heirs to property by virtue of a will and probate proceedings (Muskat, 403 Ill. App. 3d at 991); and land trust beneficiaries whose names were ascertainable from the public records (In re Application of the County Treasurer & ex officio County Collector of Cook County for Order of Judgment and Sale Against Real Estate Returned Delinquent for the Year 1985, 216 Ill. App. 3d 162, 171 (1991)); and contract purchasers of property (In re Cook County Treasurer, 185 Ill. 2d 428, 437 (1998)).
¶ 42 None of those circumstances are present here. Respondent has not cited, nor have we found, any caselaw that suggests that a municipality with a pending action for building code violations against owners of real property takes an interest in the property prior to the entry of a judgment lien against the property. Our supreme court has previously determined that those without interests or liens are not ‘interested in the real estate’ within the meaning of the provisions requiring personal notice in tax deed proceedings. See In re English‘s Estate, 24 Ill. 2d 357, 358-59 (1962) (administrator and creditors of a decedent are not interested persons for purposes of the tax deed provisions). We therefore find that the City of Harvey does not have an interest in the property as shown in the public records that entitled them to receive notice under section 22-10. Accordingly, we find that the Land Bank strictly complied with the notice provisions of section 22-10.
CONCLUSION
¶ 44 In conclusion, we find that the Land Bank strictly complied with the statutory notice requirements under the Code when it was the holder of the certificates of purchase, when all notices were sent to the required parties, and when it utilized the property address as denoted by the government agencies responsible for tax records. The judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.
¶ 45 Affirmed.