Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “Appellate Court of Illinois”

Illinois App. Court Rules Factual Question Precluded Summary Judgment in HUD/FHA Face-to-Face Challenge

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District recently concluded that two borrowers failed to rebut the foreclosing mortgagee’s prima facie case of standing to pursue foreclosure against the borrowers, and affirmed the trial court’s determination that the plaintiff mortgagee established as a matter of law that it had standing. The Second District, however, reversed the trial court’s order of summary judgment by concluding there were issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff complied with HUD’s face-to-face interview requirement at 24 C.F.R. § 203.604. As to the standing issue, the Second District held that the plaintiff established a prima facie…

Illinois App. Court (2nd Dist) Holds Mortgage Not Void Due to Lack of Licensure by Originating Lender

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, recently held that even though the Illinois Residential Mortgage License Act (“IRMLA”) was applicable to a lender that only made one loan in Illinois, an amendment to the IRMLA provided an exception to the law of the case doctrine and under the amendment the mortgage was not void merely because the lender was not licensed under the IRMLA at the time the loan was extended. A copy of the opinion in First Mortgage Company v. Dina is available at:  Link to Opinion. As you may recall, in First Mortgage Co. v. Dina, 2014 IL…

Illinois App. Court (1st Dist) Holds City May Not Obtain Money Judgment for Demolition Expenses Merely by Filing Motion

In a case of first impression, the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District recently held that the Illinois Unsafe Buildings Act does not authorize a municipality to seek a money judgment for demolition expenses against the owner of a property by simply filing a motion in the same demolition action. In so ruling, the Court found that the plain language of the Act only authorizes a municipality to affirmatively recover the amount of its lien for demolition expenses by either: (1) foreclosing on the lien and obtaining satisfaction through a judicial sale of the property; or (2) filing a…

Illinois App. Court (1st Dist) Holds Challenges to Foreclosure Failed for Lack of Diligence

The Illinois Appellate Court for the First District recently held that the trial court correctly affirmed a judicial sale and denied a motion to reconsider where an intervenor and alleged owner of the property claimed the mortgage was wiped out by the death of the sole mortgagor, who was only a joint tenant in the property at the time the mortgage was executed. In so ruling, the Court noted that the mortgagee provided proper notice and otherwise complied with all procedural rules for foreclosures in Illinois, whereas the intervenor never recorded the deed to himself and did nothing to stop…

Illinois App. Court (1st Dist) Holds Borrower Could Not Challenge Foreclosure Sale Notice as Unlawfully Discriminatory

The Illinois Court of Appeals, First District, recently determined that a borrower in a foreclosure matter did not have standing to challenge whether the mortgagee’s notice of sale was in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA). Following the entry of a judgment of foreclosure, the plaintiff mortgagee published its notice of sale, in which the mortgagee required that anyone attending the sale possess a “photo identification issued by a government agency.” The mortgagee purchased the property at the sale, and then moved for an order confirming the sale.  The borrower objected to the mortgagee’s motion, arguing that the…

Illinois App. Court (2nd Dist) Holds Mortgagee Could Not Collect Deficiency from Rents Owed to Other Mortgagees

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, recently held that a mortgagee with a foreclosure judgment could not collect on the deficiency against rents from other properties owned by the mortgagor, because the mortgagee’s foreclosure judgment was not superior to the prior recorded mortgages for the other properties which contained assignment-of-rent clauses, and the other mortgagees had executed forbearance agreements to enforce those assignment-of-rents clauses. A copy of the opinion in BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Joe Contarino, Inc. is available at:  Link to Opinion. In 2013, a bank, acting as the assignee of the FDIC, foreclosed on four mortgages…

Illinois App. Court (1st Dist) Holds Post-Foreclosure COA Dues Need Not Be Paid Monthly to Extinguish Pre-Foreclosure COA Lien

Reversing a trial court’s ruling in favor of a condominium association and against a mortgagee, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently held that the Illinois Condominium Property Act’s (“Condo Act”) provision creating a mechanism to extinguish liens for pre-foreclosure common expense assessments does not create a timing requirement as to when common expense assessments must be paid post-foreclosure to confirm extinguishment of the pre-foreclosure lien. A copy of the opinion in 5510 Sheridan Road Condominium Association v. U.S. Bank is available at:  Link to Opinion. A condominium association (“COA”) filed a lawsuit against a mortgagee seeking possession of…

Illinois App. Court Rejects Borrower’s Constitutional Challenge to Illinois Statutory Form Foreclosure Complaint

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently held that the form foreclosure complaint provided by the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law (IMFL) complies with procedural due process guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and does not violate the Illinois Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine by usurping the Illinois judiciary’s rulemaking power. A copy of the opinion in Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Bednarz is available at:  Link to Opinion. A mortgagee foreclosed on the defendant borrower’s residential property.  The mortgagee’s complaint tracked a form complaint set forth in section 1504(a) of the IMFL.  Section 15-1504(c)…

Illinois App. Court Rejects Challenge to Foreclosure Based on Alleged HAMP Non-Compliance

The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, recently affirmed a trial court’s denial of a borrower’s motion to vacate a default judgment of foreclosure and sale, rejecting the borrower’s argument that the mortgagee failed to comply with certain Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) guidelines. A copy of the opinion in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hansen is available at:  Link to Opinion. In January 2007, the borrower executed a mortgage in the amount of $360,000, which was later assigned to the mortgagee.  In December 2008, the mortgage filed a complaint seeking to foreclose due to default beginning in August 2008. The mortgagee…