SI Res., LLC v. Castleman (In re Ax Deed)
| Decision Date | 02 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 5-19-0168,5-19-0168 |
| Citation | 445 Ill.Dec. 314,2020 IL App (5th) 190168,166 N.E.3d 744 |
| Parties | IN RE Application for a TAX DEED (SI Resources, LLC, and Cadijah Brown, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Opal Castleman, Stephen R. Castleman, William Groome, and Vicki Groome, Respondents-Appellees). |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Mindy S. Salyer and Amanda L. Moressi, of Salyer Law Offices, LLC, of Chicago, for appellants.
Paul T. Slocomb, of Hoffman & Slocomb, LLC, of St. Louis, Missouri, for appellees.
¶ 1 After the circuit court entered an order directing the issuance of a tax deed to Stephen R. Castleman and Opal Castleman; SI Resources, LLC (SI Resources); and Cadijah Brown (Brown) (collectively, petitioners) filed a two-count pleading against the Castlemans and the Castlemans' successors in interest, William Groome and Vicki Groome, seeking to declare the tax deed void pursuant to section 22-85 of the Property Tax Code ( 35 ILCS 200/22-85 (West 2016) ) (count I) and to vacate the order directing the issuance of the tax deed pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) ( 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2016) ). The circuit court granted the Castlemans' and the Groomes' (collectively, respondents) motion to dismiss the petitioners' filing, pursuant to sections 2-615 and 2-619 of the Code ( 735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619 (West 2016)). Petitioners appeal from the circuit court's order dismissing their filing. For the following reasons, we affirm the circuit court's order.
¶ 3 On January 28, 2013, the Hamilton County treasurer sold the delinquent 2011 real estate taxes on the mineral rights of the subject property, identified as parcel number 08-702-100-04 (property), to Kathy Riley for $79.64, including penalties and costs. The last known person to be assessed taxes for the property, according to the Hamilton County treasurer's records, was "Brown L I Jr." On June 1, 2015, Riley assigned the certificate of purchase for the property to the Castlemans. The original redemption expiration date from the tax sale was September 28, 2015. On June 10, 2015, the Castlemans filed a notice to extend the period of redemption to October 10, 2015.
¶ 4 On June 22, 2015, the Castlemans filed a pro se petition for tax deed in the circuit court of Hamilton County, naming the following respondents: L.I. Brown Jr.; Sunrise Exploration, Inc.; the Hamilton County Clerk; unknown owners or interested parties; and nonrecord claimants. On October 19, 2015, the trial court entered an order directing issuance of a tax deed to the Castlemans as the petitioners for the deed.
¶ 5 L.I. Brown Jr. died in March 1981 without a last will and testament, and Brown and her two siblings, Ross Brown (Ross) and Kevin Brown (Kevin), were his only surviving blood relatives. On October 28, 2015, SI Resources purchased the mineral rights to the property from Brown, Ross, and Kevin, via a quitclaim deed. Pursuant to the terms of the quitclaim deed, Brown and her siblings conveyed to SI Resources:
"All (100%) of their interest that they may own or be entitled to from the estate of Lee Isaac Brown Jr., including all rights, titles, and royalties, as well as, thirty percent (30%) of all impounded proceeds, and unclaimed suspense, in the [property]."
¶ 6 On November 12, 2015, SI Resources filed a motion, pursuant to section 2-1203 of the Code ( 735 ILCS 5/2-1203 (West 2014) ), to vacate the October 19, 2015, circuit court order issuing the tax deed to the Castlemans. In the section 2-1203 motion, SI Resources alleged that the order must be vacated because the Castlemans failed to strictly comply with the mandatory notice 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)). On December 15, 2015, SI Resources filed an amended section 2-1203 motion to vacate, adding Brown as a petitioner. On December 21, 2015, the Castlemans filed a motion to dismiss the amended section 2-1203 motion, asserting the petitioners lacked standing. On February 29, 2016, the trial court granted the Castlemans' motion to dismiss. SI Resources and Brown appealed.
¶ 7 On August 10, 2017, this court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction for failing to file a timely notice of appeal. In re Application for a Tax Deed , 2017 IL App (5th) 160230-U, ¶ 14, 2017 WL 3447835. This court held that SI Resources did not have standing to file a section 2-1203 motion because it was not a party to the original action and, thus, its section 2-1203 petition did not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal from a final judgment. In re Application for a Tax Deed , 2017 IL App (5th) 160230-U, ¶¶ 13-14, 2017 WL 3447835.
¶ 8 At some point during the proceedings, the Castlemans assigned the certificate of purchase on the property to the Groomes.1 On February 29, 2016, the same day that the trial court dismissed the section 2-1203 motion, the Groomes prepared and presented a tax deed for the subject property to the Hamilton County Clerk. The clerk issued the tax deed to the Groomes, and it was recorded with the Hamilton County Recorder of Deeds on that date.
¶ 9 On June 26, 2017, while the first appeal was pending, the petitioners filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus against the Hamilton County Clerk arguing the clerk erred in issuing a tax deed to the Groomes in the absence of a circuit court order directing the clerk to do so. The petitioners asserted the clerk "must reform the tax deed" to conform to the circuit court's October 19, 2015, order and issue a tax deed to the Castlemans. In her answer, the clerk confessed error, and agreed to "revert" the tax deed "back to [the Castlemans]." The clerk requested that the court "enter an order directing the county clerk[,] on the production of the certificate of purchase and a certified copy of the order, to issue to the purchaser or his or her assignee a tax deed." On October 26, 2017, the mandamus court issued an agreed order granting the complaint for writ of mandamus . On October 27, 2017, the clerk issued a "Corrective Tax Deed" for the subject property to the Castlemans. The corrective tax deed stated that it "corrects" the tax deed recorded on February 29, 2016.2
¶ 10 On October 23, 2017, the petitioners filed a two-count pleading in the underlying tax proceeding. Count I of the pleading was a " Section 22-85 Motion to Void Tax Deed," and count II of the pleading was a "[ Section] 2-1401 /22-45 Petition to Vacate the October 19, 2015 Order Directing Issuance of Tax Deed."3 The petitioners subsequently filed several amended pleadings. Count I of their amended pleading was a " Section 22-85 Motion to Void Tax Deed" requesting the circuit court enter an order voiding the October 27, 2017, tax deed issued to the Castlemans. The petitioners alleged that the tax deed was void because the Castlemans failed to take out and record the deed within one year of October 10, 2015, the redemption period expiration date, as required by section 22-85 of the Property Tax Code. Count II of the pleading was a section 2-1401 petition seeking an order from the circuit court vacating the October 19, 2015, order directing issuance of a tax deed to the Castlemans.4 In count II, the petitioners alleged the October 19, 2015, order should be vacated (a) pursuant to section 22-45(3) of the Property Tax Code ( 35 ILCS 200/22-45(3) (West 2016)) because the Castlemans procured the tax deed by fraud through a pattern of deception and concealment regarding notice in violation of sections 22-10, 22-25, and 22-20 of the Property Tax Code ( 35 ILCS 200/22-10, 22-25, 22-20 (West 2016)) and (b) pursuant to 22-45(4) of the Property Tax Code ( 35 ILCS 200/22-45(4) (West 2016)) because the Castlemans violated the notice and diligent inquiry requirements of section 22-20 of the Property Tax Code.
¶ 11 The respondents filed a combined section 2-615 and section 2-619 motion to dismiss the petitioners' pleading. The motion sought to dismiss count I, pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code ( 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2016) ), for failing to state a claim because the Groomes, as the holders of the tax sale certificate of purchase, took out and recorded a tax deed on February 29, 2016, which was within a year from the expiration of the redemption period. Alternatively, the respondents argued that the October 27, 2017, corrective tax deed should be deemed timely recorded because the recording period was tolled under the provisions of section 22-85. The respondents sought to dismiss count II under section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code ( 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2016)) for lack of standing. The respondents argued the petitioners lacked standing because SI Resources did not acquire its interest in the property until after the deadline for redemption had expired and Brown did not have an interest in the property when the section 2-1401 petition was filed because she had quitclaimed her interest to SI Resources.
¶ 12 On September 24, 2018, the circuit court entered an order dismissing the pleading, in which it treated both counts of the petitioners' pleading as a section 2-1401 petition. Relying on this court's recent decision in In re Application for a Tax Deed , 2018 IL App (5th) 170354, 430 Ill.Dec. 718, 126 N.E.3d 1245, the circuit court granted the respondents' motion and dismissed count I pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code and count II pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code. On October 24, 2018, the petitioners filed a motion to reconsider, which the circuit court denied. This appeal follows.
¶ 14 A section 2-615 motion attacks the legal sufficiency of the complaint and raises the question of whether the complaint states a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2016) ; Oldendorf v. General Motors Corp. , 322 Ill. App. 3d 825, 828, 256 Ill.Dec. 161, 751 N.E.2d 214 (2001). Section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code...
To continue reading
Request your trial