Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Third Division
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 12 CH 7426. Honorable Robert E. Senechalle, Judge Presiding.
The appellate court affirmed the entry of summary judgment for plaintiff mortgagee in a mortgage foreclosure action, notwithstanding defendants' contentions that the trial court erred in striking certain of defendants' affirmative defenses, including the claim that they did not receive notice of acceleration of their loan and that plaintiff did not comply with the federal Truth in Lending Act.
For APPELLANTS: Charles Silverman, Of Counsel, Charles Aaron Silverman, PC, Chicago, IL.
For APPELLEE: Louis J. Manetti, Jr., Of Counsel, Codilis & Associates, PC, Chicago, IL.
JUSTICE MASON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Pucinski and Justice Lavin concurred in the judgment and opinion.
[¶1] In this mortgage foreclosure action relating to property located at 1503 North Larch Drive in Mount Prospect, Illinois, the trial court granted summary judgment to plaintiff-appellee CitiMortgage, Inc., against defendants-appellants, Anna and Katherine Bukowski. Following a judicial sale of the property, the trial court confirmed the sale in an order dated February 20, 2014. On appeal, defendants contend that the trial court erred in striking certain affirmative defenses, specifically, that they did not receive a notice of acceleration
of the loan and that CitiMortgage failed to comply with the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) (15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (2006)) in connection with the modification of the loan. Finding no merit in either issue, we affirm.
[¶3] CitiMortgage filed its complaint to foreclose the mortgage on February 9, 2012. CitiMortgage alleged a default in payment of monthly installments on the loan beginning in October 2011. Attached to the complaint were the mortgage and note dated November 21, 2007, and a loan modification agreement executed on June 24, 2010. The loan modification adjusted the interest rate on the loan and changed the maturity date. Only Anna signed the note and loan modification agreement. Both Katherine and Anna signed the original mortgage.
[¶4] On March 16, 2012, Anna filed a pro se answer. Anna claimed that she possessed insufficient information to allow her to admit or deny the existence of a default in payment of amounts due under the loan. ...