Page 2 - John Hundley 2015

Noting that IMFL § 15-1505 permits the mortgagee to make tax payments “prior to sale,” that IMFL §
15-1512(b) permits the recovery of expenses of securing possession “before sale,” and that taxes are not
fees and costs (which are recoverable clear up to the confirmation hearing), the panel rejected the
mortgagee’s argument.

Also rejected was an argument that the tax payments should be recoverable because the foreclosure
judgment appeared to allow such expenses “between entry of Judgment and confirmation of sale.” The
panel said that that provision was inconsistent with IMFL and an abuse of discretion.

Court Orders $13,505 In Sanctions

The Appellate Court panel hearing Bank of Am., N.A. v. Basile, 2014 IL App (3d) 130204 (see Sharp
Thinking No. 116 (June 2014)), has imposed sanctions totaling $13,505 against mortgagors and their
counsel for making a frivolous appeal in a mortgage foreclosure case.

In a supplemental opinion filed last month, the Third District soundly rejected defendants’ arguments
against imposing sanctions but found that the $43,104 sought by Bank of America was excessive. It
awarded $10,000 in attorney fees and $3,505 in costs, and ordered that those amounts be paid 50% by
the mortgagors and 50% by their counsel.

Confirmation Objection Grounds Limited

A foreclosure defendant may not oppose a motion to confirm the foreclosure sale merely by
attacking the underlying judgment, a panel in the Appellate Court’s First District has held.

Relying on Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. McCluskey, 2013 IL 115469 (see Sharp Thinking No. 107
(January 2014)), the court in DLJ Mortg. Capital, Inc. v. Frederick, 2014 IL App (1st) 123176, said a
defendant is limited to the four grounds for refusing confirmation set forth in 735 ILCS 5/15-1508(b).
Moreover, referring to the fourth ground stated in that statute, the panel said that “[t]o show that
justice was not otherwise done, a party must establish that the lender, through fraud or
misrepresentation, prevented the borrower from raising the meritorious defense to the complaint, or
the borrower was otherwise prevented from protecting his property interests.”

Full Payment Doesn’t Automatically Release Mortgage

Receipt of full payment creates an obligation to release a mortgage but does not by itself release
the mortgage, a panel in the Appellate Court in Chicago has opined.

Writing in North Shore Community B. & T. Co. v. Sheffield Wellington LLC, 2014 IL App (1st)
123784, the panel said that under the Mortgage Act (765 ILCS 905/2) receipt of full payment created an
obligation to “make, execute and deliver” a release, a release was not effected until such a writing was
delivered and the bank’s alleged receipt of full payment did not by itself operate as a release depriving it
of standing in the case.
- John T. Hundley, Jhundley@lotsharp.com, 618-242-0200

Linda\sharpoffice\sharpthinkings\issue125.pdf
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
SHARP-HUNDLEY, P.C.

1115 Harrison, P.O. Box 906, Mt. Vernon, IL 62864 • Telephone 618-242-0200 • Facsimile 618-242-1170
www.thesharpfirm.com

Business Transactions • Litigation • Financial Law • Problem Finances • Real Estate • Corporate • Commercial Disputes
• Creditors’ Rights • Arbitration & Mediation • Estate Planning • Probate • Family Law

John T. Hundley: Jhundley@lotsharp.com; Rebecca L. Reinhardt: Rreinhardt@lotsharp.com;
Darren Taylor: Dtaylor@lotsharp.com; Terry Sharp: Tsharp@lotsharp.com

Advertising Material