Appeal from the Circuit Court of Du Page County. No. 11-CH-4285. Honorable Robert G. Gibson, Judge, Presiding.
The confirmation of the judicial sale of defendant's foreclosed property was affirmed over defendant's contention that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on plaintiff's failure to establish its standing by showing that plaintiff was properly assigned the mortgage at issue, since plaintiff presented a justiciable matter that gave the trial court subject matter jurisdiction, even if plaintiff lacked standing, and in the absence of a showing that defendant had a meritorious defense and that substantial justice, plain error or an issue of public importance required consideration of the issue of plaintiff's standing, the trial court's judgment would be upheld.
Joseph M. Williams, of Law Offices of Joseph M. Williams, of Winfield, for appellant.
Ralph T. Wutscher, F. John McGinnis, and Kevin M. Hudspeth, all of McGinnis Wutscher Beiramee LLP, of Chicago, for appellee.
JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices McLaren and Hudson concurred in the judgment and opinion.
[¶1] Defendant, Wayne Canale, the property owner in a foreclosure action, appeals after the trial court confirmed the judicial sale of the property at issue. He asserts that, because plaintiff, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, failed to comply with the statutory pleading requirements for a foreclosure action (see 735 ILCS 5/15-1504(a) (West 2010)), the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter a foreclosure judgment for plaintiff. We disagree, and thus we affirm.
[¶2] I. BACKGROUND
[¶3] Plaintiff filed a foreclosure complaint relating to the property at 5S365 Vest Avenue, Naperville, on September 8, 2011. It made defendant a defendant as the property owner and borrower and alleged that he was in default on the note at issue. It also named two banks--RBS Citizens, N.A. (RBS), and SBM Charter One Bank, N.A. (SBM)--and unknown owners and nonrecord claimants. The complaint stated that the " mortgagee, trustee or grantee in the Mortgage" was Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for Silver Mortgage Bancorp, Inc. The attached mortgage was consistent with that allegation. Plaintiff stated that the capacity in which it brought the action was " mortgagee and holder of the note." However, the attached note showed a single endorsement, from Silver Mortgage Bancorp, Inc., to Ohio Savings Bank (OSB), " ITS SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS." Also part of the record is a mortgage modification agreement between defendant and Amtrust Bank (Amtrust).
[¶4] RBS and SBM appeared and answered. Defendant did neither. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the banks and default judgment against defendant.
[¶5] On June 5, 2012, the court entered a judgment of foreclosure in favor of plaintiff, i.e., it entered judgment for $107,466.04 in favor ...