The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES B. ZAGEL
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Lomas and Rushton executed the mortgage contract at issue in 1981. Under the terms of the mortgage, Rushton was required to make aggregate monthly payments of principal, interest, taxes and insurance. The mortgage provides that "any deficiency in the amount of any . . . aggregate monthly payment shall, unless made good prior to the due date of the next payment, constitute an event of default under this Mortgage." The note executed in connection with the mortgage contains the following provision:
If there be any deficiency in the payment of any . . . installment of principal and interest for a period of thirty (30) days after the due date thereof, the holder of this note may, at its option, and without notice, declare all the unpaid principal and accrued interest of said note immediately due and payable.
The mortgage also provides for acceleration of the loan upon default. Furthermore, the mortgage states that "in the event that the whole of said debt is declared to be due, the Mortgagee shall have the right immediately to foreclose this mortgage."
In a November 18, 1990 letter, Lomas notified Rushton, who was three months behind in her mortgage payments, that she was in default of the mortgage contract. Lomas' November 18 letter informed Rushton that in order to cure her default and prevent acceleration of her loan, she had to pay the three installments she had missed and the attendant late charges within thirty days from the date of the letter. Rushton does not challenge the propriety of the November 18 letter as the Court has thus far described it. But the letter also contained an offer of reinstatement and therein lies the crux of this dispute. Specifically, the letter stated that if Rushton failed to cure her default within thirty days and her loan was accelerated, she could still reinstate the loan before a foreclosure sale. To obtain reinstatement, Rushton would have to pay "all sums which would then be due if no acceleration occurred," and reasonable expenses incurred by Lomas in connection with her default, including attorney's fees.
Thirty days passed and Rushton had not cured her default. She then received a letter from Lomas' attorneys dated February 8, 1991. Through this letter, Lomas informed Rushton that it intended to file a foreclosure action but that she could still reinstate her loan by paying the amount in arrears, late charges and attorney's fees by February 15, 1991. Rushton did not make the requested payments and Lomas commenced foreclosure proceedings.
Has Lomas breached its contract with Rushton by conditioning its offer to reinstate her mortgage on her payment of Lomas' attorney's fees? The answer depends on whether Lomas was under a duty to reinstate Rushton's mortgage without imposing such a condition. Put another way, if the mortgage contract, common law or statutory law grants Rushton a right to obtain reinstatement by paying only the arrearage and late fees, then perhaps Lomas has infringed that right by demanding attorney's fees as well.
The question presented is not a difficult one. The mortgage contract and applicable law reveal quite readily that the duty Rushton seeks to impose on Lomas (and the right she tries to create for herself) have no basis in fact or law. The mortgage contract authorizes attorney's fees "in case of foreclosure of this mortgage by said Mortgagee in any court of law or equity," or "in case of any suit, or legal proceeding, wherein the Mortgagee shall be made a party thereto by reason of this mortgage." In their brief opposing this motion, Rushton's counsel mischaracterizes the language of the mortgage by inserting the word "only" before the provision quoted above authorizing attorney's fees upon foreclosure or the commencement of some other judicial proceeding. Having altered the language to their advantage, Rushton's counsel then argues that "on its face, this language permits fees only if a judicial proceeding is commenced." Rushton Response Brief at 10. This argument is at best inane and at worst misleading.
The mortgage contract contains no language barring Lomas from offering to reinstate the mortgage in return for payment of delinquencies and attorney's fees. And neither law nor logic dictates that because the contract authorizes attorney's fees after foreclosure, Lomas is barred from demanding attorney's fees in exchange for reinstatement before foreclosure. The mortgage contract provides a mortgagor in default two undesirable choices: pay the entire debt or suffer foreclosure. Lomas offered Rushton a third choice--an extracontractual offer not prohibited by the mortgage documents that Rushton was free to accept or reject. Since the mortgage contract does not obligate Lomas to offer to reinstate Rushton's mortgage, or limit such an offer in the manner Rushton suggests, the mortgage contract does not provide a basis for Rushton's breach of contract claim. Cf. Cushman & Wakefield v. Northbrook 500 Ltd., 445 N.E.2d 1313, 1320 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1983) (no breach of contract where parties never contracted as to maximum amount to be spent for construction).
Furthermore, neither the common law nor pertinent statutory authority supports Rushton's cause. In the words of the Supreme Court of Illinois, "the right to reinstate a delinquent mortgage was unknown to the common law and is purely statutory." First Federal Savings and Loan Assoc. of Chicago v. Walker, 91 Ill. 2d 218, 437 N.E.2d 644, 646, 62 Ill. Dec. 956 (Ill. 1982).
The statute on which Rushton bases her claim is section 15-1602 of ...