Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v. Sigler

• Decision Date: 27 March 2020
• Docket Number: No. 1-19-1006,1-19-1006
• Citation: 446 Ill.Dec. 96,169 N.E.3d 759,2020 IL App (1st) 191006
• Parties: DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, AS TRUSTEE FOR the Trust Known as RESIDENTIAL ACCREDIT LOANS, INC., MORTGAGE ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-QS15, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eyal M. SIGLER; Lee Sigler ; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., f/k/a Washington Mutual Bank; Sunset Fields Homeowners Association of Northbrook, Illinois; Unknown Owners; and Non-Record Claimants, Defendants (Eyal M. Sigler and Lee Sigler, Defendants-Appellees).
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2020 IL App (1st) 191006

169 N.E.3d 759

446 Ill.Dec. 96

DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, AS TRUSTEE FOR the Trust Known as RESIDENTIAL ACCREDIT LOANS, INC., MORTGAGE ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-QS15, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. Eyal M. SIGLER; Lee Sigler ; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., f/k/a Washington Mutual Bank; Sunset Fields Homeowners Association of Northbrook, Illinois; Unknown Owners; and Non-Record Claimants, Defendants(Eyal M. Sigler and Lee Sigler, Defendants-Appellees).

No. 1-19-1006

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, FIFTH DIVISION.

Opinion filed March 27, 2020

P. Russell Perdew and Ryan A. Sawyer, of Locke Lord LLP, of Chicago, for appellant.

Rod Radjenovich, of Jeffrey Strange and Associates, of Wilmette, for appellees.

PRESIDING JUSTICE HOFFMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 The plaintiff, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (Deutsche Bank), as trustee for Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QS15, appeals from an order of the circuit court that granted a motion by the defendants, Eyal Sigler and Lee Sigler (the Siglers), to dismiss Deutsche Bank's foreclosure action for violating section 13-217 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) ( 735 ILCS 5/13-217 (West 2012) ), also known as the single-refiling rule. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 2 The following facts and procedural history relevant to our disposition of this appeal were adduced from the pleadings and exhibits of record.

¶ 3 On August 30, 2006, Eyal Sigler executed a promissory note (note) in return for a loan of $681,000. The note was secured by a mortgage on the property located at 1801 Fieldwood Drive, Northbrook, Illinois, which both Eyal and Lee Sigler executed. The note was ultimately assigned to Deutsche Bank, as trustee for Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QS15.

¶ 4 The note required monthly, interest-only payments for the first 120 months, followed by monthly principal and interest payments until the loan matured on September 1, 2036. The note contained an acceleration provision that provided as follows:

"If I am in default, the Note Holder may send me a written notice telling me that if I do not pay the overdue amount by a certain date, the Note Holder may require me to pay immediately the full amount of Principal which has not been paid and all the interest that I owe on that amount. That date must be at least 30 days after the date on which the notice is mailed to me or delivered by other means."

The mortgage contained a similar acceleration provision.

¶ 5 The Siglers made monthly payments on the note for approximately 18 months. At that point, the Siglers failed to make the required monthly payments, beginning with the payment due on March 1, 2008, and defaulted on the note.

¶ 6 On May 2, 2008, Deutsche Bank mailed the Siglers a notice of default and acceleration (acceleration notice), stating that the Siglers had 30 days to cure the default with a payment of $15,339.59. The notice also stated that, if Siglers failed to cure the default, Deutsche Bank would "accelerate the maturity of the loan, declare the obligation due and payable without further demand, and begin foreclosure proceedings." The Siglers did not cure the default within 30 days of the May 2, 2008 notice and have not made a payment since February 1, 2008.

¶ 7 On June 13, 2008, a foreclosure action was filed against the Siglers (Sigler I) with the following entity named as the plaintiff: "Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee, Pooling #40438 Dist #2006QS51."¹ The complaint alleged that the Siglers "have not paid the monthly installments of principal, taxes, interest and insurance for 03/01/2008, through the present." The complaint further alleged that "the principal balance due on the Note and Mortgage is $681,000.00, plus interest, costs, advances and fees."

¶ 8 On June 22, 2011, the Siglers' counsel sent Deutsche Bank a letter, stating that, after searching through the Security and Exchange Commission database, he could not find any proof that the trust named as the plaintiff actually existed. The Siglers' counsel demanded that Deutsche Bank dismiss the foreclosure complaint.

¶ 9 On October 13, 2011, Deutsche Bank, as trustee, filed a motion to correct misnomer, which stated that "the trust on whose behalf [Deutsche Bank] acts as Trustee was mistakenly not identified by its complete name, though it correctly identified the Trustee and correctly indicated that the case was brought by a trustee on behalf of a trust." The motion went on to request that the plaintiff be identified as "Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee for the trust known as Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QS15."

¶ 10 The Siglers filed a response, arguing that the circuit court should deny the motion as a sanction for Deutsche Bank's "fraud on the court" by, inter alia , filing various "false affidavits" that identified the incorrect trust. The Siglers further argued that the circuit court should dismiss the action "[i]n order to deter Deutsche [Bank] from future false and outright dubious litigation filings."

¶ 11 On October 20, 2011, the circuit court denied the motion to correct misnomer. That same day, Deutsche Bank made an oral motion to voluntarily dismiss Sigler I, which the circuit court granted.

¶ 12 The next day, on October 21, 2011, a second foreclosure complaint was filed against the Siglers (Sigler II). The complaint listed the following party as the plaintiff: "Deutsche Trust Company Americas, as Trustee for the trust known as Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QS15."

¶ 13 The Sigler II complaint alleged that the Siglers defaulted on the note by failing to make the monthly payments "for March 1, 2008, through the present." The complaint also alleged that the Siglers owed $681,000.00 in unpaid principal, plus all interest and expenses. On December 5, 2011, Deutsche Bank voluntarily dismissed its complaint in Sigler II.

¶ 14 On February 8, 2012, Deutsche Bank, as trustee for Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QS15, filed a foreclosure complaint against the Siglers (Sigler III), alleging that the Siglers "have not paid the monthly installments of principal, taxes, interest and insurance for December 1, 2011, through the present." The complaint also alleged that "the principal balance due on the Note and the Mortgage is $681,000.00, plus interest, costs, advances and fees."

¶ 15 On March 16, 2012, the Siglers filed a motion to dismiss Sigler III pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code ( 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2012)), arguing that the action should be dismissed for violating section 13-217 of the Code, also known as the "single-refiling rule," which prohibits actions that have been voluntarily dismissed from being refiled more than once. The circuit court denied the Siglers' motion on April 13, 2012.

¶ 16 In an affidavit dated January 16, 2013, Peter Knapp, an agent of Deutsche Bank's "subservicer" GMAC Mortgage, LLC (GMAC), averred that, on December 16, 2011, prior to initiating foreclosure proceedings, GMAC mailed a grace-period notice to the Siglers as required by section 15-1502.5 of the Code ( 735 ILCS 5/15-1502.5 (West 2010) ).²

¶ 17 Deutsche Bank and the Siglers subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment, with the Siglers once again invoking the single-refiling rule as a bar to Sigler III. On June 28, 2013, the circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank and against the Siglers.

¶ 18 On March 2, 2016, Deutsche Bank voluntarily dismissed Sigler III.

¶ 19 On March 9, 2016, Deutsche Bank filed the instant foreclosure action against the Siglers (Sigler IV), alleging that "[t]he mortgagor has failed to make payments when due and the subject loan has been accelerated." The complaint also alleged that "[t]he current unpaid principal balance is $681,000, plus accrued interest, court costs, title cost and plaintiff's attorney fees" and that "[t]he subject loan is paid through February 1, 2008."

¶ 20 On December 12, 2016, the Siglers filed a motion pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code to dismiss Sigler IV, arguing that Sigler IV violated the single-refiling rule because it arose out of the same operative facts as the prior foreclosure actions that Deutsche Bank had voluntarily dismissed. On September 7, 2017, the circuit court denied the Siglers' motion without prejudice, finding as follows: Sigler I had a different plaintiff than the three subsequent foreclosure actions, Sigler III is different than Sigler II and Sigler IV in that Sigler III alleged a different default date, and Sigler IV is the first refiling of Sigler II. The Siglers filed a motion to reconsider the denial of their motion to dismiss, which the circuit court denied.

¶ 21 On May 10, 2018, the Siglers filed their answer and affirmative defense to the Sigler IV complaint, raising as an affirmative defense that Sigler IV was barred by the single-refiling rule. On May 31, 2018, Deutsche Bank filed a motion to strike the Siglers' affirmative defense, which the circuit granted on September 4, 2018.

¶ 22 On September 7, 2018, Deutsche Bank filed a motion for summary judgment. On October 3, 2018, the Siglers filed a motion for leave to file their amended answer and affirmative defenses, which the circuit court granted on October 18, 2018. In their amended answer, the Siglers asserted, as an affirmative defense, that Deutsche Bank's action on the underlying note was barred by the statute of limitations.

¶ 23 That same day, the circuit court also granted Deutsche Bank's motion to file an amended motion for summary judgment.

¶ 24 On November 8, 2018, Deutsche Bank filed its amended motion for summary judgment, attaching in...