Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST, as Trustee for Argent Securities Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4, Plaintiff-Appellee,
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).
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.
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
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
6 Peters filed a notice of appeal, challenging the
confirmation of the sale.
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 ...