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.

Deutsche Bank National Trust v. Peters

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division

June 23, 2017

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST, as Trustee for Argent Securities Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RUDY PETERS, Defendant-Appellant (Renate G. Peters; Yellow Book USA, Inc.; Unknown Owners and Nonrecord Claimants; Platinum Research 5, LLC; United States of America; State of Illinois, Defendants).

         Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 12 CH 1596 Honorable Pamela McLean Meyerson, Judge Presiding.

          Presiding Justice Hoffman and Justice Delort concurred in the judgment and opinion.

          OPINION

          CUNNINGHAM JUSTICE

         ¶ 1 Following a judgment of foreclosure on the property formerly owned by defendant-appellant Rudy Peters, the circuit court of Cook County entered a judgment, confirming the sale of the property in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Deutsche Bank National Trust (the bank). Peters now appeals from the order confirming the sale. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.

         ¶ 2 BACKGROUND

         ¶ 3 The trial court entered a judgment for foreclosure and sale on Peters's property in favor of the bank. Peters does not challenge the original foreclosure judgment.

         ¶ 4 Following a judicial sale at which the bank purchased the property, the bank moved for an order confirming the sale pursuant to section 15-1508 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/15-1508 (West 2016)). Peters objected to the bank's motion. In his objection, Peters argued that the following language in the published notice of sale violated the Illinois Human Rights Act (Act) (775 ILCS 5/3-102(F) (West 2016)): "You will need a photo identification issued by a government agency (driver's license, passport, etc.) in order to gain entry into our building and the foreclosure sale room ***." Peters claimed that this was a violation of the Act that prevented the court from confirming the sale under section 15-1508(b) of the Code.

         ¶ 5 Following a hearing, the trial court entered an "Order Approving Report of Sale and Distribution, Confirming Sale, and Order of Possession" in favor of the bank. In its order, the court stated: "The court makes a finding that [Peters] has not met [his] burden to show that the sale should not be approved. Further, the court finds that [Peters] has not proven that the notice of sale violated the Human Rights Act or that [Peters] has standing to raise that issue."

         ¶ 6 Peters filed a notice of appeal, challenging the confirmation of the sale.

         ¶ 7 ANALYSIS

         ¶ 8 We note that we have jurisdiction to review the trial court's order confirming the sale as Peters filed a timely notice of appeal. Ill. S.Ct. R. 301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994); Ill. S.Ct. R. 303 (eff. Jan. 1, 2015).

         ¶ 9 As a preliminary matter, we note that the bank urges us to dismiss Peters's appeal due to several violations of Supreme Court Rule 341, including but not limited to: failing to provide proper proof of service, failing to include a statement of the issue in his brief, and failing to cite to the record. Ill. S.Ct. R. 341 (eff. Jan. 1, 2016). However, we find that these violations are minor and do not hinder our review of the case. See Doe-3 v. McLean County Unit District No. 5 Board of Directors, 2012 IL 112479, ¶ 10 n.4.

         ¶ 10 Moving to the merits of the case, Peters does not address the finding of lack of standing. However, he argues that the order confirming the sale should be vacated because the notice of sale violated the Act, as it required potential purchasers to provide a government-issued identification. Specifically, he argues that the notice of sale language discriminates on the basis of "national origin, " since persons, particularly Mexican nationals, who have entered the country without proper documentation are prohibited from obtaining a government-issued identification and thus would be unable to participate in the judicial sale of the property. Peters urges this court to find that by restricting the universe of potential buyers to persons possessing a government-issued identification, the terms of the sale were unlawfully discriminatory, not commercially reasonable, and otherwise unconscionable.

         ¶ 11 In response, the bank first argues that Peters has forfeited any challenge to the trial court's finding that he lacked standing to challenge the notice of sale under the Act, because he did not raise the argument in his brief, and requests us to affirm the trial court's judgment on that basis. The bank makes no further arguments on the issue of standing. The bank otherwise argues that the language in the notice of sale did not violate the Act because (1) the language requiring a ...


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.