Illinois Official Reports
Appellate Court
In re Application of the County Treasurer & ex officio County Collector,
2013 IL App (1st) 130463
Appellate Court In re THE APPLICATION OF THE COUNTY TREASURER AND
Caption ex officio COUNTY COLLECTOR OF COOK COUNTY,
ILLINOIS, for Judgment and Order of Sale Against Lands and Lots
Returned Delinquent for Nonpayment of General Taxes for the Year
2006 (Equity One Investment Fund, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
Harold Williams, Respondent-Appellee).
District & No. First District, Fifth Division
Docket No. 1-13-0463
Filed December 27, 2013
Held The trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s application for a tax deed
(Note: This syllabus following plaintiff’s payment of the delinquent real estate taxes on
constitutes no part of the respondent’s property was affirmed, since the post-sale notice form
opinion of the court but plaintiff filed pursuant to the Property Tax Code was not “completely
has been prepared by the filled in” as required by the Code, and such a deficient notice is not
Reporter of Decisions considered to be notice within the meaning of the statute.
for the convenience of
the reader.)
Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 10-COTD-3155;
Review the Hon. Paul A. Karkula, Judge, presiding.
Judgment Affirmed.
Counsel on Rodney C. Slutzky, of Slutzky & Blumenthal, of Chicago, for
Appeal appellant.
Michael J. Wilson, of Michael J. Wilson & Associates, P.C., of
Chicago, for appellee.
Panel JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion.
Presiding Justice Gordon and Justice Palmer concurred in the
judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 Equity One Investment Fund, LLC (Equity One), paid the Cook County clerk $10,021.34
to satisfy the delinquent 2006 real estate taxes for property located at 6901 South Euclid
Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 60649, and then petitioned the circuit court for a deed. The property
is a two-story brick single-family residence on an oversized lot with a brick detached garage
that has a second-story apartment. The property is part of Chicago’s South Shore community,
in the historic Jackson Park Highlands District, and has been designated as a Chicago
Landmark by the city council of Chicago. Homeowner Harold Williams objected to Equity
One’s petition in part on grounds that a statutorily required notice omitted the name of the
municipality in which the property is located and, therefore, the petitioner had not strictly
complied with the provision in section 22-5 of the Illinois Property Tax Code (Code) that the
notice form be “completely filled in.” 35 ILCS 200/22-5 (West 2008). After briefing and oral
arguments, the circuit court ruled in favor of homeowner Williams. Equity One appeals,
contending the name of the municipality was unnecessary because the notice included the
14-digit property index number or PIN issued by the Cook County clerk.
¶2 The following facts and legal principles are pertinent to Equity One’s appeal. The
delinquent tax sale occurred on August 13, 2008, and within the subsequent “4 months and 15
days” specified by section 22-5 of the Code, Equity One tendered its post-sale notice form to
the Cook County clerk on December 18, 2008, for delivery to “the party in whose name the
taxes are last assessed.” 35 ILCS 200/22-5 (West 2008). Section 22-5 of the Code has been
referred to as the post-sale notice provision, in order to distinguish it from other notice
provisions in the statute. See In re Application of the County Treasurer & ex officio County
Collector, 2011 IL App (1st) 101966, 955 N.E.2d 669 (hereinafter Glohry). Section 22-5 of the
Code specifies that “[i]n order to be entitled to a tax deed,” the buyer of delinquent taxes must
(“shall”) tender to the clerk “the following form completely filled in:”
-2-
“TAKE NOTICE
County of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Date Premises Sold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Certificate No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sold for General Taxes of (year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sold for Special Assessment of (Municipality)
and special assessment number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Warrant No. . . . . . . . . . Inst. No. . . . . . . . . .
THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN SOLD FOR
DELINQUENT TAXES
Property located at . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Legal Description or Permanent Index No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....................................................................
....................................................................
This notice is to advise you that the above property has been sold for delinquent
taxes and that the period of redemption from the sale will expire on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This notice is also to advise you that a petition will be filed for a tax deed which will
transfer title and the right to possession of this property if redemption is not made on or
before . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
At the date of this notice the total amount which you must pay in order to redeem
the above property is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
YOU ARE URGED TO REDEEM IMMEDIATELY TO
PREVENT LOSS OF PROPERTY
Redemption can be made at any time on or before . . . . . . . . . . by applying to the
County Clerk of . . . . . . . . . County, Illinois at the County Court House in . . . . . . . .,
Illinois.
The above amount is subject to increase at 6 month intervals from the date of sale.
Check with the county clerk as to the exact amount you owe before redeeming.
Payment must be made by certified check, cashier’s check, money order, or in cash.
For further information contact the County Clerk
ADDRESS: . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TELEPHONE: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..............
Purchaser or Assignee
Dated (insert date).” 35 ILCS 200/22-5 (West 2008). 1
1
The current version of the statute includes minor revisions that went into effect in 2012. Under the
heading “THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN SOLD FOR DELINQUENT TAXES,” the word
“Permanent” became “Property”; under the heading “YOU ARE URGED TO REDEEM
IMMEDIATELY TO PREVENT LOSS OF PROPERTY,” the phrase “County Court House” became
-3-
¶3 In the space designated for the property’s location, Equity One wrote on its post-sale notice
form: “Property Located at: A PARCEL APPROX. 48.12’ X 134.33’ LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF 69TH ST. AND EUCLID AVE., in
Hyde Park Township in COOK County, Illinois.” In the space designated for the legal
description of the property or its PIN, Equity One wrote, “Legal Description or Permanent
Index No.: 20-24-322-011-000 Volume: 261.” Equity One also indicated on the post-sale
notice form that the owner could redeem the property by paying $20,014.64 by February 23,
2011. See 35 ILCS 200/21-350 (West 2008) (providing redemption period of at least two years
and six months for properties improved with one to six dwelling units). Equity One later
extended the redemption period to June 3, 2011.
¶4 More than 2½ years after the tax sale, Equity One filed its petition for a tax deed. The
statutory form language quoted above reappears almost verbatim in sections 22-10 and 22-25
of the Code, which are sections that provide for a second round of notices known as
pre-expiration notices. 35 ILCS 200/22-10, 22-25 (West 2008); Glohry, 2011 IL App (1st)
101966, ¶ 28, 955 N.E.2d 669 (distinguishing between post-sale and pre-expiration notices).
Section 22-10 requires the buyer of delinquent taxes to notify “the owners, occupants, and
parties interested in the property” that the tax sale occurred, the statutory redemption period is
expiring in three to six months, and the matter has been set for hearing on a date certain in the
circuit court of the county. 35 ILCS 200/22-10 (West 2008); In re Application of the County
Collector of Cook County for Order of Judgment & Sale of Lands Upon Which General Taxes
for Five or More Years Are Delinquent, 173 Ill. App. 3d 814, 817-18, 527 N.E.2d 1038, 1041
(1988) (parties interested in premises that are the subject of a tax sale must be given notice both
of the sale and the period in which the property may be redeemed). Sections 22-15 and 22-20
specify that the pre-expiration notices shall be given by personal service and publication and
section 22-25 indicates an identical notice must be delivered to the clerk of the circuit court for
service from the clerk by certified mail, return receipt requested. 35 ILCS 200/22-15, 22-20,
22-25 (West 2008).
¶5 On its section 22-10 and 22-25 pre-expiration notices, Equity One indicated the property at
issue was located at “6901 South Euclid Avenue, Chicago, Illinois” (35 ILCS 200/22-10,
22-25 (West 2008)), and these notices were then served by the Cook County sheriff, and
delivered and published by the clerk of the circuit court of Cook County.
¶6 When there was no redemption, Equity One filed an application on June 9, 2011, for a
court order directing the county clerk to issue a tax deed. Williams, however, appeared through
counsel and filed an objection and then an amended objection to the petition for a tax deed. It is
unclear how and when Williams learned of the tax sale, nonetheless, his appearance was
timely. In his amended objection, Williams contended Equity One failed to make diligent
inquiry to locate and serve every occupant of the subject premises and that the incomplete
address on the section 22-5 post-sale notice form rendered it defective. 35 ILCS 200/20-5
(West 2008). A hearing was convened. The parties stipulated to submit various documents for
“Office of the County Clerk”; and a concluding paragraph which is not relevant here was added. Pub.
Act 97-557, § 5 (eff. July 1, 2012).
-4-
the court’s consideration, such as certified mail receipts and returns of service completed by
the local sheriff. Williams, who was born in 1934, and thus was in his seventies during the
events at issue, was too ill to attend the hearing. Equity One’s owner, John Bridge, testified that
Williams’ property was one of about 200 properties that the company purchased at the annual
tax sale for the 2006 tax year. As we indicated above, the circuit court was persuaded by the
argument presented by Williams’ attorney, the court denied Equity One’s petition for a tax
deed and its motion for reconsideration, and this appeal followed.
¶7 Equity One contends the property location stated in its post-sale notice was adequate
because it included the PIN that appears on a page of the Sidwell Company’s cadastral map
(cadastral or Sidwell map) that is used in the office of the Cook County clerk. A cadastral map
shows property boundaries, subdivision lines, buildings, and related details; is an official
register of quantity, value, and ownership of real estate; and is used in apportioning taxes.
Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 159 (10th ed. 1996). The stipulated exhibits
included a copy of a Sidwell map page entitled “E ½ SW ¼ Sec. 24-38-14, HYDE PARK
TWP.” Toward the top right corner of the page are the numbers “38-14-24F” and “20-24,” and
the latter set of numbers appear in Williams’ 14-digit PIN, which is 20-24-322-001-000. This
particular map page encompasses 16 city blocks, bounded on the north by East 67th Street, the
south by East 71st Street, the west by South Creiger Avenue, and the east by South Jeffrey
Boulevard. Williams’ city block, which is divided into 24 lots, is labeled with the number 322,
and those three digits are also part of Williams’ PIN. Equity One contends the property
location stated on its allegedly defective section 22-5 post-sale notice is identical to the
information on the cadastral map, including the reference to “Hyde Park Twp [Township]” and
the absence of the word “Chicago.” Equity One argues that section 22-5 of the Code does not
specify that the property’s address be written on the post-sale notice, only that the notice be
“completely filled in,” and Equity One concludes that its post-sale notice to homeowner
Williams was both complete and accurate, in full compliance with the statute. 35 ILCS
200/22-5 (West 2008).
¶8 Williams responds that the location of the property is a critical part of a notice that is
intended to convey all necessary information to the property owner so that he or she may
redeem the property, that Equity One’s notice was incomplete without the municipality name,
and that this omission is unacceptable in light of the fact that a delinquent tax purchaser must
strictly comply with the notice standard imposed by the Illinois legislature.
¶9 Statutory construction is a question of law, and a reviewing court interprets a statute
pursuant to its own judgment, independent of, and not deferential to, that of the trial court.
Advincula v. United Blood Services, 176 Ill. 2d 1, 12, 678 N.E.2d 1009, 1015 (1996).
¶ 10 Case law indicates that the primary purpose of the tax deed system is to coerce tax
delinquent property owners to pay their taxes, not to assist others in depriving the true owners
of their property. In re Application of the County Collector, 295 Ill. App. 3d 703, 710, 692
N.E.2d 1211, 1216 (1998) (hereinafter Midwest Real Estate Investment). See also In re
Application of Cook County Collector, 100 Ill. App. 3d 178, 180, 426 N.E.2d 947, 949 (1981)
(hereinafter Ohr) (indicating the notice provisions in the tax deed system “are designed for the
benefit of citizens and to protect their property from sacrifice”). Section 22-5’s specific
-5-
purpose is to assist property owners in redeeming their property before interest accumulates
and thus requires that the last tax assessee be given early notice and additional time to make
arrangements to preserve their property rights. Glohry, 2011 IL App (1st) 101966, ¶ 37, 955
N.E.2d 669; In re Application of the County Treasurer & ex officio County Collector, 2013 IL
App (1st) 130103, ¶ 34 (hereinafter Salta Group). Accordingly, the buyers of delinquent taxes
are required to strictly comply with the provisions of the Code in order to be entitled to a tax
deed. Strict compliance is a well-settled standard this court reiterated in Glohry, in which the
post-sale notice indicated the redemption period would expire on a Sunday instead of a
weekday as required by statute and in Salta Group, in which the delinquent tax buyer prepared
a post-sale notice indicating the redemption period would expire on a Saturday. Glohry, 2011
IL App (1st) 101966, ¶ 4, 955 N.E.2d 669; Salta Group, 2013 IL App (1st) 130103, ¶ 3.
¶ 11 It was undisputed that the property owner in Glohry never received the post-sale notice
sent by the clerk’s office (Glohry, 2011 IL App (1st) 101966, ¶ 5, 955 N.E.2d 669), and thus
could not credibly argue she was misled by the erroneous redemption expiration date.
Nonetheless, under the strict compliance standard it is irrelevant whether any owner, occupant,
or other interested party is misled by a defect in a notice. Glohry, 2011 IL App (1st) 101966,
¶ 40, 955 N.E.2d 669. A notice which specifies a wrong date is treated as no notice whatsoever
within the meaning of the tax deed statute. Gage v. Davis, 129 Ill. 236, 240, 21 N.E. 788, 789
(1889). “[E]ssentially, [the] courts assume prejudice to any respondent.” Midwest Real Estate
Investment, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 708, 692 N.E.2d at 1215. This assumption is employed because
placing the burden on the respondent to show that he or she was misled would mean that the tax
buyer could obtain a tax deed without strictly complying with the statutory notice
requirements, which is unacceptable. Ohr, 100 Ill. App. 3d at 180, 426 N.E.2d at 949. The
Glohry court remarked that it would be “absurd” to find that the legislature intended to allow a
tax deed petitioner to do anything less than what was specified in the notice statute. Glohry,
2011 IL App (1st) 101966, ¶ 40, 955 N.E.2d 669. Therefore, in Glohry, even though there was
a “trivial-sounding inconsistency” between a Sunday and the following Monday redemption
expiration date, the trial and appellate courts enforced the strict compliance standard and
rejected the petitioner’s application for a tax deed. Glohry, 2011 IL App (1st) 101966, ¶ 4, 955
N.E.2d 669.
¶ 12 Subsequently, in Salta Group, in which the petitioner’s post-sale notice stated a Saturday
instead of weekday as the redemption expiration date, no one appeared in the trial court to
object to the issuance of a tax deed, but after reading the notice, the judge deemed it to be
fatally defective. Salta Group, 2013 IL App (1st) 130103, ¶ 5. The appellate court affirmed this
decision, stating, “The fact that no one objected to [the] application does not render proper an
otherwise improper notice.” Salta Group, 2013 IL App (1st) 130103, ¶ 20. Furthermore, “a
party should not be allowed to issue an incorrect notice then argue that the fact that no one
came forward as a result of the incorrect notice nullifies the incorrect nature of the notice.”
Salta Group, 2013 IL App (1st) 130103, ¶ 21.
¶ 13 In Midwest Real Estate Investment, the tax buyer received a tax sale certificate that was
numbered “XX-XXXXXXX,” but when preparing its various notice forms, the tax buyer omitted
the first four digits and listed the certificate number as “25017.” Midwest Real Estate
-6-
Investment, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 707, 692 N.E.2d at 1214. No one objected to the issuance of the
tax deed and trial judge granted the application. Midwest Real Estate Investment, 295 Ill. App.
3d at 704, 692 N.E.2d at 1212. Three days later, however, the property owner moved for leave
to appear in the proceedings and objected on grounds that the tax buyer had not “completely
filled in” the notice forms. Midwest Real Estate Investment, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 707, 692
N.E.2d at 1214. The trial court found this objection persuasive, vacated its prior order, and
recalled the tax deed. Midwest Real Estate Investment, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 705, 692 N.E.2d at
1213. This was the trial court’s ruling despite the fact that the property owner was neither
misled nor prejudiced by the omission of the “91-00” prefix, as demonstrated by the fact that
he visited the office of the county clerk, obtained an estimate of the exact amount needed to
redeem his property, and secured a loan in the amount necessary to redeem, but was delayed by
the lending process and did not return to the county clerk before the redemption period ended.
Midwest Real Estate Investment, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 708, 692 N.E.2d at 1214. On appeal, the
tax buyer contended that the omitted numbers were a mere prefix to the essential certificate
number and that the sole purpose of displaying the certificate number on the notice forms was
to enable the county clerk to identify a particular sale when an interested party inquired by
redemption, meaning that the prefix was extraneous information on a pre-expiration notice.
Midwest Real Estate Investment, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 707, 692 N.E.2d at 1214. The tax buyer
also characterized its abbreviated certificate number as a “harmless” error or merely a
“typographical or scrivener’s error” and contended that “absolute perfection” is not required in
the tax deed system. Midwest Real Estate Investment, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 707-10, 692 N.E.2d at
1215-16. The courts were unpersuaded. At the beginning of its decision, the appellate court
noted that its task was to determine “how the legislature would answer the question, ‘How
strict is strict?’ ” Midwest Real Estate Investment, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 704, 692 N.E.2d at 1212.
After its analysis, the court answered its question, as follows:
“In closing, we believe that the legislature would respond to our opening query,
‘Strict.’ We recognize that our decision today may be looked upon as a rigid and
legalistic application of the strict compliance language from section 22-40 [of the
Code]. However, [this conclusion is consistent with the legislature’s apparent intent
regarding notices]. Moreover, we view the statute’s strict compliance language as a
bulwark. By opening the dike to permit any omission–however minute–of statutorily
required information, we may unintentionally encourage a flood of litigants seeking
case-by-case determinations of the strict compliance boundaries.” Midwest Real Estate
Investment, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 710, 692 N.E.2d at 1216.
¶ 14 We also take guidance from Ohr, 100 Ill. App. 3d at 179, 426 N.E.2d at 948, which
concerned vacant lots in an unimproved area of the Village of Bridgeview, but the tax buyer’s
pre-expiration notices mistakenly described the location as the neighboring municipality of
Hickory Hills. In this case, the court pointed out that a delinquent tax sale allows the buyer to
acquire property at only a small fraction of its market value and that “great injury *** can
result from the forfeiture of property rights.” Ohr, 100 Ill. App. 3d at 180, 426 N.E.2d at 949.
The flawed notices were ineffective and did not entitle the petitioner to tax deeds. Ohr, 100 Ill.
App. 3d at 181, 426 N.E.2d at 950.
-7-
¶ 15 Equity One complains that the trial court “creat[ed], out of thin air, unwritten and unknown
requirements” when it denied the petition for a tax deed to Williams’ property. In light of the
statutory language and authority above, we are not persuaded by Equity One’s contention that
omitting the name of the municipality “Chicago” from the property location but including the
property’s PIN on the post-sale notice form rendered the notice sufficient. The statutory form,
as quoted at the outset of this opinion, provides for the delinquent tax buyer to “completely”
state both (1) the property’s location and (2) then its legal description or PIN. 35 ILCS
200/20-25 (West 2008). There must be strict compliance with the statute and when there are
substitutions or omissions on a notice form, the tax buyer is not entitled to a tax deed. We do
not need to inquire whether Williams actually received the deficient section 22-5 post-sale
notice and suffered any prejudice or confusion as a result of the omission of the city name;
prejudice is presumed. We find that Equity One’s section 22-5 notice was not in strict
compliance with the Code because it did not include the name of the municipality where the
residence is located. We find that a property location for purposes of section 22-5 should
always include the name of the municipality where the subject property is situated. 35 ILCS
200/22-5 (West 2008). Furthermore, as we summarized above, the statutory form for
pre-expiration notices provides for the delinquent tax buyer to again “completely” state both
(1) the property’s location and (2) then its legal description or PIN. 35 ILCS 200/20-10, 20-25
(West 2008). It is telling that Equity One revised the property location for Williams’ property
when preparing its pre-expiration notices and that this second round of notices included the
name of the municipality “Chicago” in the property location. We hold that Equity One’s
post-sale notice form to Williams was not “completely filled in,” as required by our legislature.
35 ILCS 200/20-5 (West 2008). Because a deficient notice is not regarded as any notice within
the meaning of the statute, the trial court properly denied the application for a tax deed.
Accordingly, we affirm on this basis and decline to reach the parties’ additional arguments
regarding the trial court’s ruling.
¶ 16 Affirmed.
-8-