Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HOME SAV. OF AMERICA v. AMERICAN NATL. BANK & TRUS

April 23, 1991

HOME SAVINGS OF AMERICA, F.A., Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF CHICAGO, as Trustee under Trust Agreement dated August 1, 1984 and known as Trust No. 61569, and INLAND REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, an Illinois corporation, Defendants


Charles R. Norgle, United States District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: NORGLE

CHARLES R. NORGLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 Before the court is the motion of defendants American National Bank and Trust Company ("American") and Inland Real Estate Corporation ("Inland") to dismiss the complaint of Home Savings of America, F.A. ("Home Savings") for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted.

 Home Savings brings this complaint for foreclosure pursuant to Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 110, paras. 15-1101 et seq. (1989). Complaint, p. 2, par. 6. Jurisdiction in this court is founded upon diversity, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Complaint, p. 2, par. 4.

 Initially, the court begins by noting that "federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction," and this court can only obtain jurisdiction over certain classes of cases as set out by Congress. *fn1" Northern Trust Co. v. Bunge Corp., 899 F.2d 591, 593 (7th Cir. 1990). Congress has decided that, in cases which do not raise a federal question, diversity of parties as well as a jurisdictional amount must be present. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

 
28 U.S.C. § 1332 states, in pertinent part;
 
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $ 50,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between --
 
(1) citizens of different States;
 
(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state;
 
(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and
 
(4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.

 In the instant case, the plaintiff has joined as defendants in this foreclosure action both "unknown owners" and "nonrecord claimants." Complaint, p. 2, par. 6(c), (d). Plaintiff apparently names such unknown owners and nonrecord claimants in the complaint as permissible parties under Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110, para. 15-1501(b), for the purpose of adjudicating the interest in the property of any unknown owners and nonrecord claimants. See Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110, para. 15-1501(a). The defendants argue that, since plaintiff has named unknown owners and nonrecord claimants as defendants in this action but cannot allege the citizenship of such parties, the application of diversity jurisdiction is improper and renders this court without subject matter jurisdiction.

 Although the Seventh Circuit has not ruled on this issue, a number of district court cases have. In those cases which have directly addressed this issue, the majority have held that the naming of unknown owners and nonrecord claimants as defendants destroys diversity jurisdiction. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. LaSalle National Bank, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5496, No. 89 C 8203 (N.D. Ill. April 30, 1990); Ozark Financial Corp. v. Faletti, No. 85 C 9849 (N.D. Ill. November 29, 1985); Government Employees Corporation v. Buggs, No. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.