Hood v. Hall Text corrected May 3, 2001

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois
DecidedApril 17, 2001
Docket5-99-0733 Rel
StatusPublished

This text of Hood v. Hall Text corrected May 3, 2001 (Hood v. Hall Text corrected May 3, 2001) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hood v. Hall Text corrected May 3, 2001, (Ill. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

(text box: 1)

NO. 5-99-0733

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT

________________________________________________________________________

HERMAN HOOD, d/b/a ) Appeal from the

G & H INVESTMENTS, ) Circuit Court of

) Jackson County.

Petitioner-Appellee, )

v. ) No. 98-TX-16

)

RICHARD HALL, )

Respondent-Appellant, )

and )

FIRST NATIONAL BANK & TRUST )

COMPANY, CHARTER BANK, and )

MAGNA BANK, ) Honorable

) Thomas H. Jones,

Respondents. ) Judge, presiding.  

________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE WELCH delivered the opinion of the court:

This appeal is from an order of the circuit court of Jackson County, entered October 6, 1999, denying the motion of Richard Hall (appellant), filed pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Civil Practice Law (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 1998)), to vacate a tax deed issued to Herman Hood, doing business as G & H Investments (appellee).  Appellant argues that the issuance of the tax deed was stayed by virtue of appellant’s bankruptcy proceedings and that the tax deed is void ab initio because it was issued in violation of the automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. §362 (1994)).

On October 30, 1995, appellee purchased the subject real estate at the county’s annual tax sale and received a certificate of purchase therefor.  On June 19, 1997, appellant filed a petition in bankruptcy in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, which was converted to a chapter 7 proceeding on March 3, 1998.  On March 23, 1998, appellee filed a petition in the circuit court of Jackson County for an order directing the issuance of a tax deed to the subject property.  The petition asserts that the period of redemption was to expire on July 10, 1998.  Appellant was served with notice of the petition; the bankruptcy trustee was not.  The petition came on for hearing on July 20, 1998.  On that date, the circuit court of Jackson County entered an order directing the issuance of a tax deed for the subject property to appellee.  

On July 8, 1999, appellant filed a motion to vacate the tax deed pursuant to section 2-1401, asserting that an automatic bankruptcy stay had been in effect which precluded any action against the debtor’s estate and that the tax deed had been issued in violation of the stay and was therefore void ab initio .  The motion further alleges that appellant was discharged in bankruptcy on October 5, 1998.  Appellee filed a response to the motion, and the parties filed legal memoranda in support of their respective positions.  

On October 6, 1999, the circuit court of Jackson County entered an order denying appellant’s motion to vacate the tax deed.  Relying on the reasoning of In re Tabor Enterprises, Inc. , 65 B.R. 42 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1986), the trial court held that, because it is the expiration of the redemption period that divests the property owner of the property, no affirmative act is required of the tax purchaser within the meaning of the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code.  The trial court ruled that, accordingly, the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply to void the issuance of a tax deed.  Appellant appeals.

There is no question that judgments entered in violation of the automatic stay in bankruptcy are void ab initio ( In re Application of the County Collector for Delinquent Taxes , 291 Ill. App. 3d 588, 591 (1997); In re Garcia , 109 B.R. 335, 338 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1989)) and that void judgments may be attacked at any time ( Bank of Matteson v. Brown , 283 Ill. App. 3d 599, 606 (1996)).  The only question before us is whether the order directing the issuance of a tax deed was obtained by appellee in violation of the automatic stay, rendering that order void ab initio .  

The trial court relied on In re Tabor Enterprises, Inc. , 65 B.R. 42 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1986), and we find its reasoning and rationale persuasive.  In that case, the property of the debtor was sold for taxes, and a certificate of purchase was issued to the tax purchaser prior to the filing of the debtor’s petition in bankruptcy.  Subsequently, and during the pendency of the bankruptcy, the tax purchaser petitioned for and obtained an order directing the issuance of a tax deed.  Thereafter, the debtor filed a motion to void the tax deed as having been obtained in violation of the automatic stay in bankruptcy.  The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, applying Illinois law, held that the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code does not toll the running of the statutory period of redemption provided by Illinois law.   Tabor Enterprises, Inc. , 65 B.R. at 44. (footnote: 1)  The expiration of the redemption period automatically divests the property owner/debtor of his property, and therefore, no affirmative act of the tax purchaser is required.   Tabor Enterprises, Inc. , 65 B.R. at 45.  The expiration of the redemption period extinguishes the owner/debtor’s rights in the property.   Tabor Enterprises, Inc. , 65 B.R. at 46.  The automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code applies only to prohibit affirmative acts against the debtor or his estate.   Tabor Enterprises, Inc. , 65 B.R. at 45.  The expiration of the redemption period is not the type of affirmative act proscribed by the automatic stay provision.   Tabor Enterprises, Inc. , 65 B.R. at 46.  Thus, the automatic bankruptcy stay does not apply to render void the issuance of a tax deed.   Tabor Enterprises, Inc. , 65 B.R. at 46.

The case relied on by appellant in the trial court, In re Application of the County Collector for Delinquent Taxes , 291 Ill. App. 3d 588 (1997), is distinguishable on its facts from Tabor Enterprises, Inc. and the case at bar.  In that case, the property owners filed their petition in bankruptcy prior to the sale of the property for taxes.  The county sold the property for taxes without seeking or obtaining relief from the automatic stay.  The sale of the property for taxes was an effort by the county to enforce its lien for taxes against the debtor and his estate.  Such an affirmative action is prohibited by the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code.  See also In re Greer , 89 B.R. 757 (Bankr. S.D. Ill. 1988); In re Garcia , 109 B.R. 335 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1989).  

In the instant case, as in Tabor Enterprises, Inc. , the tax sale was conducted prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy proceeding.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Greer v. Perry County (In Re Greer)
89 B.R. 757 (S.D. Illinois, 1988)
McRoberts v. S.I.V.I. (In Re Bequette)
184 B.R. 327 (S.D. Illinois, 1995)
Jackson v. Midwest Partnership
176 B.R. 156 (N.D. Illinois, 1994)
In Re Stewart
190 B.R. 846 (C.D. Illinois, 1996)
In Re Application of County Collector for Delinquent Taxes
683 N.E.2d 995 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1997)
Bank of Matteson v. Brown
669 N.E.2d 1351 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hood v. Hall Text corrected May 3, 2001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hood-v-hall-text-corrected-may-3-2001-illappct-2001.