Castleman v. Jean (In re Application for a Tax Deed)
| Decision Date | 18 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 5-17-0354 |
| Citation | 2018 IL App (5th) 170354 |
| Parties | In re APPLICATION FOR A TAX DEED (Opal Castleman and Stephen R. Castleman, Petitioners-Appellees, v. Jerry Jean; Stewart Producers, Inc.; Washington County Clerk; Evelyn M. Fair; Unknown Owners or Parties Interested; and Nonrecord Claimants, Respondents (Jerry Jean, Respondent-Appellant; SI Resources, LLC, Appellant; William Groome, Intervenor-Appellee)). |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Illinois Official Reports
Appellate Court
Decision Under Review
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Washington County, No. 14-TX-11; the Hon. Daniel J. Emge, Judge, presiding.
Counsel on Appeal
Mindy S. Salyer and Amanda L. Moressi, of Salyer Law Offices, LLC, of Chicago, for appellants.
Paul T. Slocomb, of Hoffman & Slocomb, of St. Louis, Missouri, for appellees.
Panel
¶ 1 The section 2-1401 petitioner, Jerry Jean, appeals the May 23, 2017, order of the circuit court of Washington County, which granted intervenor William Groome's motion to dismiss Jean's petition to declare void or to vacate, pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2016)), the circuit court's previous order directing the issuance of a tax deed to the petitioners, Opal Castleman and/or Stephen R. Castleman (the Castlemans). In addition, the section 2-1401 petitioner, SI Resources, LLC (SI Resources), appeals the circuit court's August 14, 2017, order, which granted Groome's motion to dismiss SI Resources's petition to declare void or to vacate, pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code (id.), the same order, directing the issuance of a tax deed to the Castlemans.1 For the following reasons, we affirm both orders of the circuit court.
¶ 3 On September 19, 2014, Opal Castleman filed a pro se petition for tax deed in the circuit court of Washington County, naming the following respondents: Jerry Jean, Stewart Producers, Inc., Washington County Clerk, Evelyn M. Fair, unknown owners or parties interested, and nonrecord claimants. The petition alleged that the Castlemans had purchased the delinquent real estate taxes with respect to all oil, gas, and other mineral rights related to parcel No. 07-72-23-000-052-00, located in Washington County. According to the petition and the attachments thereto, the redemption period for these mineral rights was to expire on February 25, 2015. The circuit court issued an order directing the issuance of the tax deed on March 4, 2015.
¶ 4 On April 2, 2015, SI Resources filed a petition, pursuant to section 2-1203 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1203 (West 2014)), to vacate the March 4, 2015, order directing the issuance of a tax deed. According to the petition and exhibits attached thereto, SI Resources purchased the mineral rights to the subject real estate from Jean via quitclaim deed on March 27, 2015. The petition alleged that the order directing the issuance of a tax deed must be vacated because the Castlemans failed to strictly comply with the mandatory notice, service, and diligence requirements set forth in sections 22-5 through 22-40 of the Property Tax Code. 35 ILCS 200/22-5 to 22-40 (West 2014).
¶ 5 On July 1, 2015, Groome filed a motion to intervene in the litigation, alleging that he obtained a quitclaim deed to the mineral rights in the subject property from the Castlemans. The circuit court granted the motion to intervene that same date. On September 10, 2015, Groome filed a motion, pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West2014)), to dismiss SI Resources's section 2-1203 petition to vacate the order directing the issuance of a tax deed. On November 16, 2015, the circuit court entered an order granting the motion to dismiss. SI Resources filed a notice of appeal to this court on November 24, 2015.
¶ 6 Meanwhile, on November 4, 2015, Jean filed an entry of appearance in the postjudgment proceedings. On November 13, 2015, Jean filed a petition to void, or in the alternative, to vacate, pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code (id. § 2-1401), the circuit court's March 4, 2015, order directing the issuance of the tax deed to the Castlemans. In count I of his petition, brought pursuant to section 2-1401(f), Jean alleged that the order and tax deed are void due to the Castlemans' "complete failure to diligently ascertain, direct, or serve any notice of the tax sale to the record owners, Evelyn Fair, her Estate, or her successors and assigns." According to count I, due to these omissions by the Castlemans, Jean's due process rights were violated and the circuit court was without jurisdiction to issue the tax deed, rendering the tax deed void. In count II, brought pursuant to section 2-1401 generally, Jean alleged that the tax deed had been procured by fraud, and due to this fraud, Jean argued that section 22-45 of the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/22-45 (West 2014)) provides that the order issuing the tax deed can be vacated.
¶ 7 On November 16, 2015, Groome filed a motion to strike Jean's section 2-1401 petition on the basis that Jean did not request leave to file the motion and that counsel for SI Resources, who also represented Jean, had previously admitted that "Jean clearly does not have standing to vacate the order for tax deed [for mineral rights on] property he no longer has any interest in whatsoever." The motion to strike further argued that Jean should seek leave to file his petition to vacate and Groome should have the opportunity to object. On November 30, 2015, Jean filed a motion to stay proceedings on his section 2-1401 petition pending this court's disposition of SI Resources's appeal of the circuit court's order dismissing its section 2-1203 petition. On December 8, 2015, Groome filed an undesignated motion to dismiss Jean's petition to void and/or vacate the order issuing the tax deed on the basis that Jean has no interest in the mineral rights that are the subject of the tax deed, having given a quitclaim deed to those mineral rights to SI Resources on or about March 27, 2015.
¶ 8 On February 17, 2016, the circuit court entered an order granting Jean's motion to stay the proceedings on his motion to void and/or vacate the issuance of the tax deed pending this court's disposition of SI Resources's appeal of the circuit court's order dismissing its section 2-1203 motion to vacate. On November 22, 2016, this court issued an opinion dismissing SI Resources's appeal for a lack of jurisdiction, holding that SI Resources did not have standing to file a section 2-1203 petition because it was not a party to the original action, and thus its section 2-1203 petition did not toll the time limit for the appeal. In re Application for a Tax Deed, 2016 IL App (5th) 150517, ¶ 8.
¶ 9 On February 24, 2017, SI Resources filed a petition to void and/or vacate, pursuant to section 2-1401 (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2016)), the circuit court's order directing the issuance of the tax deed, making the same claims as are stated in Jean's petition. On March 13, 2017, Groome filed an undesignated motion to dismiss SI Resources's section 2-1401 petition, arguing that SI Resources was not a party to the tax deed proceedings, had no right to redeem the property during the applicable redemption period, and is not a proper party to a section 2-1401 proceeding. After full briefing on Groome's motion to dismiss the section 2-1401 petitions of both Jean and SI Resources, the circuit court held a hearing on May 8, 2017, and took the matter under advisement.
¶ 10 On May 23, 2017, the circuit court entered an order, granting Groome's motion to dismiss Jean's petition to declare void or vacate the order issuing the tax deed but denying the motion to dismiss the petition filed by SI Resources. On June 12, 2017, Groome filed a motion to reconsider that portion of the order that denied his motion to dismiss the petition filed by SI Resources. On June 19, 2017, Jean filed a motion to reconsider that portion of the order that granted Groome's motion to dismiss his petition. After full briefing on both motions to reconsider, the circuit court held a hearing on the motions on July 31, 2017. On August 14, 2017, the circuit court entered an order, granting Groome's motion to reconsider, dismissing SI Resources's petition in its entirety, and denying Jean's motion to reconsider the circuit court's previous dismissal of his petition. On September 18, 2017, Jean and SI Resources filed a notice of appeal. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary throughout this opinion.
¶ 12 As Jean and SI Resources point out, Groome's motion to dismiss failed to specify whether he sought to dismiss their petitions under section 2-615 or 2-619 of the Code. 735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619 (West 2016). "While failure to properly label a motion to dismiss is not a pleading practice that should be encouraged, reversal for such a deficiency is appropriate only when prejudice to the nonmovant results." Storm & Associates, Ltd. v. Cuculich, 298 Ill. App. 3d 1040, 1046 (1998) (citing Illinois Graphics Co. v. Nickum, 159 Ill. 2d 469, 484 (1994)). Here, the record below makes it clear that the parties and the court treated the motion to dismiss count I of the petitions as a motion brought pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code, as it attacked the sufficiency of count I and raised the question of whether it stated a basis for relief from the judgment. See id. (citing Burdinie v. Village of Glendale Heights, 139 Ill. 2d 501, 505 (1990)). Similarly, the record is clear that the parties and the court treated the motion to dismiss count II of the petitions as a motion brought pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code, as it was based on affirmative matter that Groome contended defeated their claims. See id. at 1047 (citing Illinois Graphics Co., 159 Ill. 2d at 485). For this...
To continue reading
Request your trial