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.

01/09/95 GORDON J. GRUBERT AND SUSANNE GRUBERT v.

January 9, 1995

GORDON J. GRUBERT AND SUSANNE GRUBERT, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
v.
THE COSMOPOLITAN NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO, AS TRUSTEE U/T/A DATED DECEMBER 16, 1988, AND KNOWN AS TRUST NO. 28934; AND JULIETTE KEVORKIAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS (JOHN KEVORKIAN, ALL TEMP HEATING, JOHN REDMANN, WAYNE ANDERSON, UNKNOWN OWNERS, NONRECORD CLAIMANTS, AND CHICAGO TITLE & TRUST COMPANY, TRUSTEE UNDER A TRUST DEED DATED DECEMBER 16, 1988, DEFENDANTS)



Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County. No. 92-CH-664. Honorable Peter M. Trobe, Judge, Presiding.

The Honorable Justice Inglis delivered the opinion of the court: Geiger and Thomas, JJ., concur.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Inglis

The Honorable Justice INGLIS delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendants, Cosmopolitan National Bank of Chicago (Cosmopolitan) and Juliette Kevorkian, are mortgagors of real property that was purchased by the plaintiffs-mortgagees, Gordon J. and Susan Grubert, at a judicially ordered foreclosure sale. The other named defendants failed to appear, and were subsequently defaulted.

On appeal, defendants argue that the trial court's order confirming the sale improperly reduced the price which plaintiffs bid for the property at the sheriff's sale. Plaintiffs argue that the order was proper because defendants consented to the price reduction. We reverse the trial court's order and remand for further evidentiary proceedings on whether the order confirming the sale properly included a consensual revision of the previously established bid price.

Plaintiffs brought this suit pursuant to the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law (Act)(735 ILCS 5/15-1101 et seq. (West 1992)). Plaintiffs sought to foreclose on property that was held as security on a note upon which they alleged $439,749 was due. Plaintiffs also requested interest, attorney fees, and costs, as provided for by the Act. 735 ILCS 5/15-1504(a)(3) (West Supp. 1994).

Defendants admitted that they were in default on the note, but did not concede the amount for which they were liable. On June 2, 1993, pursuant to section 1506 of the Act (735 ILCS 5/15-1506 (West 1992)), the trial court entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale.

After proper notice, on January 2, 1994, a public foreclosure sale was held. Plaintiffs made the sole bid at the sale. According to the sheriff's report of the sale, the bid price was $551,816.61, an amount which represented $551,201.61 due plaintiffs pursuant to the judgment of foreclosure, plus $615 to be retained by the sheriff as a commission. The sheriff's report broke down the amount due plaintiffs into the following elements:

Amount due under judgment $469,445.00

Interest through 1/10/94 27,201.52

Attorney Fees 13,500.00

Publication Costs 1,206.47

Costs of Suit 250.00

Title Change ...


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.