Sieron v. Greene Cnty. Treasurer (In re Cnty. Treasurer & Ex Officio Cnty. Collector of Greene Cnty.)
| Decision Date | 17 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | S. 4-19-0904,4-19-0905,4-19-0906 cons. |
| Citation | 2022 IL App (4th) 190904,193 N.E.3d 980,456 Ill.Dec. 740 |
| Parties | IN RE Application of the COUNTY TREASURER AND EX OFFICIO COUNTY COLLECTOR OF GREENE COUNTY, Illinois, for Order of Judgment and Sale Against Real Estate Returned Delinquent for the Nonpayment of General Taxes for the Year 2014 (Scott Sieron, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The Greene County Treasurer, Respondent-Appellee). |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Dustin S. Hudson, of Neubauer, Johnston & Hudson, P.C., of Fairview Heights, for appellant.
Christopher E. Sherer and John M. Gabala, Special Assistant State's Attorneys, of Giffin, Winning, Cohen & Bodewes, P.C., of Springfield, for appellee.
¶ 2 This is an appeal from the trial court's denial of three petitions to vacate tax sales and denial of motions to declare them as sales in error under the Property Tax Code ( 35 ILCS 200/1-1 et seq. (West 2018)). Petitioner, Scott Sieron, has been engaged in the business of purchasing properties at county tax sales for 30 years. In November 2015, Raven Securities (Raven), the corporate entity through which petitioner buys property at tax sales, purchased and obtained tax sale certificates for the three parcels of property that are the subject of this consolidated appeal: Greene County case Nos. 18-TX-4 (4-19-0904) (Certificate No. 201400100), 18-TX-5 (4-19-0905) (Certificate No. 201400145), and 18-TX-7 (4-19-0906) (Certificate No. 201400170). Each of the properties was sold by the Greene County treasurer to Raven for delinquent 2014 real estate taxes. In each case, Sieron filed and executed the proper notices to the property owners, notifying them that the property had been sold for delinquent taxes. As required, the notices informed the previous owners of the period for "redemption"—or when they could pay delinquent taxes and penalties and thereby retain their property—and advised them of the amounts owed to redeem the property. The notices further informed the previous owners that a petition for tax deed transferring title and possession of the property would be filed if the property was not redeemed by the expiration date of the redemption period. Two extensions of the redemption period were filed, ultimately extending the period of redemption to August 2018.
¶ 3 Raven assigned its interest in the properties to Sieron and filed copies of the assignments along with the relevant tax sale certificates in March 2018. Sieron filed petitions for tax deeds in April 2018, indicating that the end-date for the period for redemption was approaching and redemption had not yet occurred and seeking tax deeds and possession of the properties. An "Application for An Order Directing Issuance of a Tax Deed," along with a "Report of Proceedings and Affidavit in Support of Petition for Tax Deed" was filed in each case on August 7, 2018, four days after the redemption period expired. In his affidavit, Sieron represented that he "visited, or caused to be visited" the properties, provided photographs, found them to be in either "fair" or "poor" condition, and continued to seek tax deeds and orders of possession as to each property. An "Order Directing Issuance of Tax Deed" was entered as to each parcel on August 9, 2018, conveying the properties to Sieron and entitling him to possession immediately. (Since the claims regarding each parcel are identical, we need not reference them individually, either by their tax certificate or permanent index number.) An "Order of Possession" was entered on the same date; however, no tax deeds were ever sought.
¶ 4 In June and July 2019, Sieron filed motions under section 21-310(b)(2) of the Property Tax Code ( 35 ILCS 200/21-310(b)(2) (West 2018)), seeking a declaration of sale in error and refunds in all three cases. In case No. 18-TX-4, Sieron sought an order in June 2019, declaring the sale in error and directing a refund of monies paid to the county treasurer, plus statutory interest, for tax sale certificates issued for 2014 and 2015 delinquent taxes. Echoing the language of the statute, Sieron based his claim on the fact that "no tax deed had been issued" and that "improvements upon the property sold have been substantially destroyed, or rendered uninhabitable or otherwise unfit for occupancy, subsequent to the tax sale and prior to issuance of a tax deed." Both documentary and photographic exhibits were attached. The Greene County State's Attorney's Office filed a response on July 11, 2019, objecting to Sieron's motion and request for refund. The next day, Sieron filed a "Motion for Declaration of Sale in Error and for Refund Pursuant to Bankruptcy" under subsection 310(b)(1) of the Property Tax Code ( 35 ILCS 200/21-310(b)(1) (West 2018)) for the same parcel identified in case No. 18-TX-4, alleging an intervening bankruptcy petition filed by the former property owner "subsequent to the tax sale and prior to the issuance of the tax deed."
¶ 5 In case No. 18-TX-5, Sieron filed a motion pursuant to section 21-310(b)(2) ( 35 ILCS 200/21-310(b)(2) (West 2018)) for a "Declaration of Sale in Error and For Refund" in two counts, alleging "no tax deed has been issued" and "[t]he improvements upon the property sold have been substantially destroyed or rendered uninhabitable or otherwise unfit for occupancy, subsequent to the tax sale [for delinquent 2014 (or delinquent 2015) taxes] and prior to the issuance of the tax deed." Again, he sought an order declaring the sale to be in error, and a refund to Sieron of the amounts paid at the tax sale, plus all costs. Count I related to a tax sale certificate for delinquent 2014 taxes and count II was for delinquent 2015 taxes.
¶ 6 A substantially similar two-count motion was filed in case No. 18-TX-7 for tax sale certificates issued for delinquent 2014 and 2017 taxes.
¶ 7 The state's attorney's responses to the motions for sale in error contended they were untimely, since Sieron had been granted an "Order Directing Issuance of the Tax Deed" and an "Order for Possession" in August 2018. At the outset of the July 12, 2019, hearing on all three motions, when asked whether he wished to present live testimony, Sieron's counsel said the parties agreed to stipulate to the admission of the various exhibits accompanying the petitions and that "the exhibits pretty much show what we're doing on these." The state's attorney contended that the property passed to Sieron upon the issuance of the orders and that he had 30 days to seek to undo those orders. He also argued that the actual recording of a tax deed was irrelevant to the issue of how long Sieron waited to obtain it.
¶ 8 Sieron's counsel argued since the statute granted them a year in which to obtain the tax deed before losing all interest in the property, the 10-month delay in this case was also irrelevant. He contended that the evidence presented was sufficient to show the property had deteriorated since the time of sale to a degree sufficient to justify a sale in error. Combining oral proffers and questions put to Sieron while not under oath, Sieron and his counsel described the process involved in examining and assessing the condition of the properties, including enlisting the assistance of the county treasurer to market them, which efforts proved to be unsuccessful. Sieron argued that the legislative intent of the tax sale statutes is to "encourage tax buyers to participate in this proceeding" in order to attempt to retain properties on the tax rolls, and the sale in error statutes were designed to "give them an out if for some reason the property is not what they thought it was when they purchased it." He noted that, unlike normal buyers of property, a tax lien buyer has no right to inspect the properties until given that right by the court. "We're buying a pig in a poke," he said.
¶ 9 The trial court, during its oral pronouncement, asked Sieron's counsel about the statute's language permitting the tax lien buyer a year to obtain a tax deed. In response, counsel (referencing section 22-85 of the Property Tax Code ( 35 ILCS 200/22-85 (West 2018) )) noted that unless they act within one year and record the tax deed, they lose all interest in the property.
¶ 10 The statute to which he referred, section 22-85, is titled "Failure to timely take out and record deed; deed is void." 35 ILCS 200/22-85 (West 2018). It says, in relevant part:
"Unless the holder of the certificate purchased at any tax sale under this Code takes out the deed in the time provided by law, and records the same within one year from and after the time for redemption expires, the certificate or deed, and the sale on which it is based, shall, after the expiration of the one year period, be absolutely void with no right to reimbursement." 35 ILCS 200/22-85 (West 2018).
The trial court reasoned that the buyer was entitled to a tax deed "some 10 months ago" and had probably obtained an order of possession (which is reflected in the record), concluding:
The trial court asked the State to prepare a written order.
¶ 11 The record reveals there was a further hearing on August 29, 2019, apparently to address Sieron's motion based on a bankruptcy filed by the property owner of the parcel in case No. 18-TX-4. Instead, Sieron reargued the issues raised and addressed previously at the July hearing and briefly discussed the bankruptcy.
¶ 12 Two orders were prepared and filed on September...
To continue reading
Request your trial