Hoffmann v. Stuckslager

Citation269 N.E.2d 501,48 Ill.2d 262
Decision Date16 March 1971
Docket NumberNo. 43046,43046
PartiesGeraldine D. HOFFMANN, Appellant, v. Helen E. STUCKSLAGER et al., Appellees.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

Blair & Buyer, Chicago (Allan L. Blair and Bruce M. Buyer, of counsel), for appellant.

Ralph G. Scheu, Chicago, for appellees.

Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., Chicago (Daniel P. Coman, Chief of Civil Division, and Frances G. Sowa and Thomas E. Brannigan, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for amicus curiae, Edmund J. Kucharski.

William R. Ketcham, State's Atty., Geneva, for amicus curiae, Fern V. conner.

Jack Hoogasian, State's Atty., Waukegan, for amicus curiae, Raymond J. Sheahen.

Robert S. Cushman and Maurice W. Scott, Chicago, for amicus curiae Taxpayers Federation of Illinois.

SCHAEFER, Justice.

A judgment of the circuit court of Cook County which ordered the county clerk of that county to issue a tax deed to Geraldine D. Hoffmann was reversed by the appellate court (121 Ill.App.2d 129, 257 N.E.2d 248) and we granted leave to appeal.

On January 17, 1964, the circuit court of Cook County entered judgment and order of sale against real estate owned in fee simple by Helen E. Stuckslager for nonpayment of 1962 general real-estate taxes. On January 30, 1964, the delinquent real estate was offered for sale at the annual tax sale. The property was struck off to Interstate Bond Company, the successful bidder, and the sale was noted in the Tax Warrant Books and the Tax Judgment, Sale, Redemption and Forfeiture Record. A certificate of sale was issued to Interstate indicating an advertised purchase price of $1,013.71. A total of 606 parcels was sold by the county collector on January 30. Interstate did not make payment on that date for this or any of the other 103 purchases it made on that date. On February 7, 1964, the county collector advised Interstate by telephone that the total amount due on its 104 purchases, including interest, penalties, and costs to date of sale, was $60,519.59, and on the same day Interstate delivered a check in that amount to the collector's office.

The period of redemption was extended by Interstate under section 263 of the Revenue Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, ch. 120, par. 744) from January 30, 1966, to November 30, 1966, and the certificate of sale was assigned to Geraldine D. Hoffmann (hereafter petitioner). Her petition for a tax deed was allowed, after evidence was heard, over the objections of Helen E. Stuckslager and Walter Stuckslager, her husband. As has been stated, the appellate court reversed, and we granted leave to appeal.

The ground upon which the appellate court reversed is that the purported sale was null and void because Interstate failed to pay the advertised amount 'forthwith in cash' as required by section 247 of the Revenue Act of 1939. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, ch. 120, par. 728.) The correctness of that determination is the only issue before us. Section 247 provides: 'The person purchasing any tract or lot, or any part thereof, shall forthwith pay to the collector the amount charged on such tract or lot, and on failure so to do, the tract or lot shall be again offered for sale in the same manner as if no such sale had been made; and in no case shall the sale be closed until payment is made, or the tract or lot again offered for sale. Provided, in counties having a population of 500,000 or more, as shown by the last United States census, only the taxes, special assessments, interest and costs as advertised in the sale shall be required to be paid forthwith in cash. The general taxes charged on the land remaining due and unpaid, not included in the advertisement, shall be paid by the purchaser within 10 days after the sale, provided, that upon payment of the fee provided by law to the County Clerk (which fee shall be deemed part of the costs of sale) the purchaser may make written application within such period of 10 days to the county clerk for a statement of all such taxes, interest and costs and an estimate of the cost of redemption of all forfeited general taxes, as are not included in the advertisement and after obtaining such statement and estimate and an order on the county collector to receive the amount of forfeited general taxes, if any, the purchaser shall pay to the county collector all such remaining taxes, interest and costs, and the amount necessary to redeem the forfeited general texes, who shall issue the purchaser a receipt therefor. Any delay in providing the statement or in accepting payment, and delivering receipt therefor, shall not be counted as a part of the 10 days. When the receipt of the collector is issued a copy shall be filed with the county clerk and the county clerk shall include the amount shown in such receipt in the amount of the purchase price of such land in the certificate of purchase, and thereupon the purchaser shall be entitled to a certificate of purchase. If a purchaser fails to complete his purchase as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Korzen v. Commercial Stamping & Forging, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • October 4, 1976
    ... ...         Hoffmann v. Stuckslager (1971), 48 Ill.2d 262, 269 N.E.2d 501; John Allan Co. v. Sesser Concrete Products Co. (1969), 114 Ill.App.2d 186, 252 N.E.2d 361, and ... ...
  • County Collector, Application of
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 16, 1998
    ...to thwart statutory provisions to ensure the collectibility of taxes"), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Hoffmann v. Stuckslager, 48 Ill.2d 262, 269 N.E.2d 501 (1971). However, the legislature has since amended the Property Tax Code to specifically include the strict compliance requirement, ......
  • United Legal Found. v. Pappas
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 31, 2011
    ...determination that the time requirement in the Property Tax Code was directory rather than mandatory, as held in Hoffmann v. Stuckslager, 48 Ill.2d 262, 269 N.E.2d 501 (1971), should nevertheless not defeat its claims. United argues that in Hoffmann, the court's rationale for holding the ti......
  • Thornton, Ltd. v. Rosewell
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • September 19, 1978
    ... ...         Under the statute as it now reads, a successful bidder must make two payments in order to complete the sale. (Hoffmann v. Stuckslager (1971), 48 Ill.2d 262, 267, 269 N.E.2d 501.) At the time the sale is held and the bid is accepted, he need pay only the taxes, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT