Citibank v. Monroe (IL)

Summary: By statute, notice of a motion to confirm a judicial sale may be made before the sale, but the motion itself must be made after the sale.


Citibank, N.A. v. Monroe, 2013 IL App (2d) 120593.


Facts: On June 11, 2010, plaintiff, Citibank, N.A. (Citibank) filed a foreclosure suit relating to the property at 2360 Kane Lane in Batavia. It named Mark. W. Monroe and his wife Desiree Monroe, among others, as defendants. The Monroes answered, disputing certain specifics, asserting a bankruptcy discharge as a defense against in personam judgment, and demanding proof of all allegations. Citibank moved for and was granted summary judgment on January 18, 2012. The sheriff’s sale was scheduled for April 19, 2012. On March 26, 2012, Citibank mailed all defendants a “Notice of Motion” that stated that on April 30, 2012, Citibank would appear and move for the court to approve the April 19 sale, and grant an order for possession. Citibank filed this notice on March 27, 2012 without an accompanying written motion. On April 30, 2012, the Monroes filed their “Objections to Notice of Confirmation of Sale,” claiming that under section 15-1508 of the Code the notice had been improperly served or filed because it had been done before the sale and Citibank had not included the motion with the notice. Citibank filed its motion for confirmation on April 30 and the court confirmed the sale that day. The Monroes filed a timely notice of appeal. 


Holding: Affirmed. The Code section in controversy is 735 ILCS 5/15-1508(b), which reads, “Upon motion and notice in accordance with court rules applicable to motions generally, which motion shall not be made prior to sale, the court shall conduct a hearing to confirm the sale.” The Monroes argued that this mandated that both notice and the motion for confirmation of sale must be made after the sale. The court determined that the Monroes’ reading of the statute was incorrect. Specifically, the court explained that had the legislature intended the phrase “shall not be made prior to the sale” apply to the notice as well it could have done so without making a separate mention of the motion in that clause. Because the legislature “placed the word ‘motion’ in the parenthetical clause, thereby producing a longer and more complicated sentence,” the court determined that the legislature showed its clear intent that the “shall not be made prior to sale” clause should apply to the motion only. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower ruling.


Opinion Year: 
By: ATG Underwriting Department | Posted on: Mon, 10/21/2013 - 2:47pm