2020 IL App (1st) 191013
FIRST DISTRICT FOURTH DIVISION September 17, 2020
No. 1-19-1013
) Appeal from the U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for ) Circuit Court of the C-Bass Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, ) Cook County Series 2006-CB2, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) HASAN SHARIF, a/k/a Hasan M. Sharif, a/k/a Hasan M. ) No. 10 CH 1743 Srarif; CHARLESZETTA SHARIF; UNKNOWN ) OWNERS-TENANTS; and NONRECORD CLAIMANTS, ) ) Defendants ) ) (Hasan Sharif, Defendant-Appellant). ) Honorable ) Gerald V. Cleary, ) Judge Presiding. )
JUSTICE REYES delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Gordon and Justice Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 In this mortgage foreclosure action, defendant Hasan Sharif (defendant) appeals the
circuit court of Cook County’s entry of an order approving the sale of the property in question in
favor of plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for the C-Bass Mortgage Loan
Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-CB2 (plaintiff). Defendant’s contention on appeal is that
the circuit court abused its discretion when it confirmed the sale because the public notice of sale 1-19-1013
did not comply with section 15-1507(c)(1)(D) of the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law
(Foreclosure Law) (735 ILCS 5/15-1507(c)(1)(D) (West 2018)). For the reasons which follow,
we affirm.
¶2 I. BACKGROUND
¶3 On January 14, 2010, plaintiff filed a complaint to foreclose the mortgage against
defendant on a single-family residence located at 9004 S. Oglesby Avenue in Chicago (the
property). The complaint alleged that defendant was in default for failure to pay his mortgage
payment as of May 1, 2009. Plaintiff sought $155,185.65, the remainder due on the note plus
interest, as well as attorney costs and fees. The complaint was later amended in 2012 to add
Charleszetta Sharif as a defendant and then amended once more in 2015 to include additional
allegations.
¶4 After a lengthy litigation, involving a motion to dismiss as well as several months of loss
mitigation efforts, defendant answered the complaint. Plaintiff then moved for summary
judgment. On December 14, 2017, the circuit court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment. The court then entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale.
¶5 The property proceeded to judicial sale with the notice of sale providing as follows:
“PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to a Judgment of
Foreclosure and Sale entered in the above cause on December 14, 2017, an agent *** will
*** sell at public auction to the highest bidder, as set forth below, the following
described real estate:
LOT 2 IN BLOCK 2 IN KROEBER AND FULLEM’S FIRST ADDITION TO
SOUTH SHORE GARDENS, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF
THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 37
-2- 1-19-1013
NORTH, RANGE 14, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK
COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
Commonly known as 9004 S. OGLESBY AVENUE, CHICAGO, IL 60617
Property Index No. 25-01-230-022
The real estate is improved with a single family residence.”
The notice of sale was published in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin and the Hyde Park Herald.
Both publications included the case name, case number, the common address of the property, the
property tax identification number, and the statement that the property was “improved with a
single family residence.” Only the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin included the legal description of
the property.
¶6 The property was sold for $90,000 to plaintiff on November 15, 2018. Plaintiff moved for
the circuit court to confirm the sale. Defendant filed a response in opposition to confirmation of
the sale, arguing that the notice of sale was insufficient because it did not include an adequate
description of the improvements on the real estate as required by section 15-1507(c)(1)(D) of the
Foreclosure Law (735 ILCS 5/15-1507(c)(1)(D) (West 2018)). Defendant maintained that had
the property been appropriately described, it would have obtained a higher price at the judicial
sale. In response, plaintiff maintained that the description was adequate and, regardless, an
immaterial error in the notice of sale did not preclude the circuit court from confirming the sale.
¶7 The circuit court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm the sale and entered an in rem
deficiency on the property in the amount of $250,619.23. 1 In granting the confirmation, the
circuit court specifically found that all notices required by section 15-1507(c) of the Foreclosure
Law “have been properly given.” This appeal followed.
1 There is no report of proceedings included in the record on appeal. -3- 1-19-1013
¶8 II. ANALYSIS
¶9 On appeal, defendant contends that the circuit court abused its discretion when it
confirmed the sale where the notice of sale did not comply with section 15-1507(c)(1)(D) of the
Foreclosure Law due to the vague and insufficient description of the improvements to the
property.
¶ 10 We first address our standard of review. The Foreclosure Law, and the case law
interpreting it, is clear that whether the order approving the sale was proper is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion. Household Bank, FSB v. Lewis, 229 Ill. 2d 173, 178 (2008). “The circuit
court abuses its discretion if it committed an error of law or where no reasonable person would
take the view adopted by the court.” US Bank, National Ass’n v. Avdic, 2014 IL App (1st)
121759, ¶ 18. The party opposing the foreclosure sale bears the burden of proving that sufficient
grounds exist to disapprove the sale. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. 2010 Real Estate
Foreclosure, LLC, 2013 IL App (1st) 120711, ¶ 32.
¶ 11 In this appeal, defendant maintains that the circuit court erroneously confirmed the sale of
the property where the notice of sale was insufficient under section 15-1508(b) of the
Foreclosure Law. 735 ILCS 5/15-1508(b) (West 2018). Under this section, the circuit court shall
confirm the sale of the property unless it finds that one of four grounds exist to disapprove the
sale: “(i) a notice required in accordance with subsection (c) of Section 15-1507 was not given,
(ii) the terms of sale were unconscionable, (iii) the sale was conducted fraudulently, or (iv)
justice was otherwise not done.” Id.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Barnes,
406 Ill. App. 3d 1, 4 (2010). The Foreclosure Law expressly provides that when “shall” is used,
it means that something is mandatory and not permissive. 735 ILCS 5/15-1105(b) (West 2018);
-4- 1-19-1013
Lewis, 229 Ill. 2d at 178 (holding the trial court must approve the judicial sale unless it finds that
any of the four specified exceptions in section 15-1508(b) of the Foreclosure Law are present).
Section 15-1508(d) of the Foreclosure Law, in relevant part, further states that
“[e]xcept as provided in subsection (c) of Section of 15-1508, no sale under this Article
shall be held invalid or be set aside because of any defect in notice thereof or in the
publication of the same *** except upon good cause shown in a hearing pursuant to
subsection (b) of Section 15-1508.” 735 ILCS 5/15-1508(d) (West 2018).
¶ 12 Defendant maintains that under section 15-1508(b)(i), notice must be provided in
accordance with section 15-1507(c), which requires “public notice of the sale.” 735 ILCS 5/15-
1507(c); 15-1508(b)(i) (West 2018). According to defendant, the description that the property
was “improved with a single family residence” does not comply with the statute, as it is vague
and “not descriptive.” Defendant argues that plaintiff should have described the property with the
“actual description of the type and size of the home,” as such a description would have enticed
more prospective buyers to bid on the property. Defendant observes that this information was
known to plaintiff as it conducted inspections of the property during the foreclosure process and,
thus, could easily have been included.
¶ 13 In response, plaintiff maintains that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion where the
notice of sale satisfied section 15-1507(c) of the Foreclosure Law and, even if the description
was inadequate, the error was not material so as to invalidate the legal effect of the notice.
¶ 14 Whether plaintiff’s description of the improvements on the real estate satisfies the
language of section 15-1507(c)(1)(D) of the Foreclosure Law is a question of statutory
construction that we review de novo. 1010 Lake Shore Ass’n v. Deutsche Bank National Trust
Co., 2015 IL 118372, ¶ 21. The fundamental objective of statutory construction is to ascertain
-5- 1-19-1013
and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Id. The most reliable indicator of legislative intent
is the statutory language, given its plain and ordinary meaning. Id. A reasonable construction
must be given to each word, clause, and sentence of a statute, and no term should be rendered
superfluous. Id. In determining the plain meaning of the statute, the court must consider the
statute in its entirety, the subject it addresses, and the legislature’s apparent intent in enacting it.
Hayashi v. Illinois Department of Financial &Professional Regulation, 2014 IL 116023, ¶ 16.
¶ 15 We begin by examining the language of the statute at issue. Section 15-1507(c)(1)
provides that “[t]he notice of sale shall include at least the following information, but an
immaterial error in the information shall not invalidate the legal effect of the notice.” 735 ILCS
5/15-1507(c)(1) (West 2018). It further sets forth comprehensive directions as to what is to be
included in the notice of sale:
“(A) the name, address and telephone number of the person to contact for
information regarding the real estate;
(B) the common address and other common description (other than legal
description), if any, of the real estate;
(C) a legal description of the real estate sufficient to identify it with reasonable
certainty;
(D) a description of the improvements on the real estate;
(E) the times specified in the judgment, if any, when the real estate may be
inspected prior to sale;
(F) the time and place of the sale;
(G) the terms of the sale;
(H) the case title, case number and the court in which the foreclosure was filed;
-6- 1-19-1013
(H-1) in the case of a condominium unit to which subsection (g) of Section 9 of
the Condominium Property Act [(765 ILCS 605/1 et seq. (West 2018))] applies, the
statement required by subdivision (g)(5) of Section 9 of the Condominium Property Act;
(H-2) in the case of a unit of a common interest community to which subsection
(g-1) of Section 18.5 of the Condominium Property Act applies, the statement required
by subdivision (g-1) of Section 18.5 of the Condominium Property Act; and
(I) such other information ordered by the Court.” Id.
¶ 16 Regarding the description of the property, section 15-1507(c) contains three
requirements—a notice must contain a common description, a legal description of the property,
and a description of any improvements. Id. Defendant does not dispute the fact that the notice
contained both a legal and common description—indeed, they appear on the face of the notice.
Defendant also acknowledges that the property at issue is a single family residence. What
defendant does contest is that merely stating the real estate is improved with a “single family
residence” does not satisfy section 15-1507(c)(1)(D).
¶ 17 Examining the language of the statute, we initially observe that the information required
by section 15-1507(c)(1) regarding the property is information to which the defendant is already
privy. Therefore, this information does not serve to provide the defendant with information about
the property for sale, but instead informs prospective buyers. Indeed, defendant concedes as
much when he argues that the vague description of the improvements on the real estate caused
prospective buyers to lack interest in the property.
¶ 18 Construing the statute as a whole, we disagree with defendant that plaintiff’s description
did not satisfy section 15-1507(c)(1)(D). See Hayashi, 2014 IL 116023, ¶ 16. This section
requires plaintiff to include a litany of information about the property in the notice of sale, such
-7- 1-19-1013
as the case name and number, common address, legal description, and improvements on the real
estate. 735 ILCS 5/15-1507(c)(1) (West 2018). With this information, a prospective buyer can, at
a minimum, (1) request to review the mortgage foreclosure case file at the clerk’s office, (2) visit
the property for sale, (3) obtain information from the Cook County Assessor pertaining to the
property, and (4) obtain information from the Cook County Recorder of Deeds. In the eventuality
that prospective buyers are unable to obtain all of the information they seek with these facts,
section 15-1507(c)(1) further provides that the notice of sale must include “the name, address
and telephone number of the person to contact for information regarding the real estate.” Id.
Accordingly, prospective buyers may be able to obtain additional information about the
condition of the property from the plaintiff itself. 2 It is clear from the plain language of section
15-1507(c)(1) that the legislature’s intent in creating these requirements for the notice of sale
was to provide enough information to prospective buyers so that they can perform their due
diligence prior to bidding on the property. With this in mind, we conclude that plaintiff’s
description of the improvements of the real estate as being a “single family residence” provided
the prospective buyer with enough information so as to allow them to perform their due diligence
and thus satisfied section 15-1507(c)(1)(D).
¶ 19 To support this conclusion, we note that, in researching this case, we visited the website
of the Cook County Assessor. BankUnited, National Ass’n v. Giusti, 2020 IL App (2d) 190522,
¶ 36 (“Generally, courts may take judicial notice of facts that are commonly known or readily
verifiable from sources of indisputable accuracy.”). After typing the common property address in
the search engine, we were able to view information regarding the property at issue. The Cook
2 We note that the person named in the notice of sale to be contacted for information about the property “may, but shall not be required, to provide additional information other than that set forth in the notice of sale.” 735 ILCS 5/15-1507(c)(7) (West 2018). -8- 1-19-1013
County Assessor’s webpage included the following information about the property: (1) a
photograph picturing the front of the residence, (2) the square footage of land (3750), (3) the
square footage of the building (1108), (4) the age of the residence (63), (5) number of bathrooms
(1), and (6) exterior construction (masonry). The assessor’s webpage further indicated that the
property has a two-car detached garage and a full but unfinished basement. The property does
not have central air conditioning, fireplaces, or an attic. The information provided on the publicly
available assessor’s website is significantly more detailed than the information defendant
suggests should have been included in the notice of sale. The fact this level of detail is readily
available and easily searchable supports our conclusion that the information included in the
notice of sale here was sufficient.
¶ 20 In rendering this determination, we further acknowledge the importance of the procedural
posture of this case. Defendant raised this issue during the confirmation hearing under section
15-1508(b)(i) of the Foreclosure Law. Under this section, the circuit court “shall” confirm the
sale of the property unless “a notice in accordance with subsection (c) of Section 15-1507 was
not given.” 735 ILCS 5/15-1508(b)(i) (West 2018). Section 15-1508 further provides, with an
exception not at issue here, that “no sale under this Article shall be held invalid or be set aside
because of any defect in the notice thereof or in the publication of the same *** except upon
good cause shown.” (Emphasis added.) Id. § 15-1508(d).
¶ 21 Even assuming a defect occurred in the content of the notice of sale, defendant fails to
demonstrate good cause under section 15-1508(d) so as to have the sale held invalid or set aside.
See id. Although defendant maintains the description of the improvements on the real estate was
not sufficient under section 15-1507(c)(1)(D), this section also provides that “an immaterial error
in the information shall not invalidate the legal effect of the notice.” Id. § 15-1507(c)(1). Reading
-9- 1-19-1013
sections 15-1508(d) and 15-1507(c)(1) together, it is apparent that the legislature intended that an
“immaterial error in the information” included in the notice of sale would not be sufficient to
demonstrate good cause under section 15-1508(d). Even an accurate but arguably incomplete
description of the improvements on the real estate, as is the case here, would not rise to the level
of a material error and, thus, would not constitute good cause as contemplated by section 15-
1508(d). See World Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Amerus Bank, 317 Ill. App. 3d 772, 779-80 (2000)
(finding the failure of the notice of sale to include specific terms of the bidding process did not
rise to the level of a material error so as to constitute good cause under section 15-1508(d) of the
Foreclosure Law).
¶ 22 We find Cragin Federal Bank For Savings v. American National Bank & Trust Co. of
Chicago, 262 Ill. App. 3d 115 (1994), supports this conclusion. There, the reviewing court found
that, in order to establish “good cause” to overturn a sale under section 15-1508(d) of the
Foreclosure Law, a mortgagor needed to provide evidence that the property sold for substantially
less than its actual value as a result of the mortgagee’s failure to provide adequate notice. Id. at
121. In Cragin, the mortgagors moved to vacate the trial court’s confirmation of a foreclosure
sale because the proper number of public notices was not provided. Id. at 117. The mortgagee
had successfully bid $950,000 for the subject property, and a deficiency judgment of
$337,738.90 was entered against the mortgagors. Id. In response to the motion to vacate, the
mortgagee submitted an appraisal that valued the property at $950,000. Id. The circuit court
denied the motion to vacate. Id. at 118. On appeal, the mortgagors argued that, due to the
mortgagee’s failure to provide all requisite public notices, “the [mortgagee] purchased the
property for less than its value, thereby leaving [the mortgagors] liable for a substantial
deficiency.” Id. at 121.
- 10 - 1-19-1013
¶ 23 The reviewing court agreed with the circuit court that the mortgagors had not established
“good cause” to overturn the sale under section 15-1508(d) of the Foreclosure Law (735 ILCS
5/15-1508(d) (West 1992)). Cragin, 262 Ill. App. 3d at 121. The Cragin court noted that the
mortgagors made no claim that they themselves were not notified of the sale pursuant to section
15-1507(c)(3) of the Foreclosure Law (735 ILCS 5/15-1507(c)(3) (West 1992)). Cragin, 262 Ill.
App. 3d at 121 at 120. As for the flaws in the public notices, the court stated that they alone were
not enough to constitute “good cause” for invalidating the sale. Id. at 121. The court further
recognized that “the sale of the property for substantially less than its actual value could
constitute ‘good cause’ for setting aside the sale when coupled with the lack of complete
compliance with the notice provisions.” Id. The Cragin court explained: “That the public sale did
not attract a party willing to purchase the property for substantially its value would suggest that
the notice was inadequate.” Id. The court found that, despite the “substantial” deficiency
judgment, the mortgagors failed to demonstrate that the property was sold for substantially less
than its actual value. Thus, they did not establish that the sale was vitiated by the failure to
provide the proper public notice. Id.
¶ 24 Here, as in Cragin, defendant fails to demonstrate good cause to invalidate the sale. First,
as previously discussed, even if we were to construe plaintiff’s description of the improvements
to the property as being an error, it did not rise to the level of a material error. See 735 ILCS
5/15-1507(c)(1) (West 2018). Using the information provided in the notice, prospective buyers
would have been able to perform their due diligence in researching the property prior to bidding
at a judicial sale. Second, defendant never demonstrated through any admissible evidence that
the sale price of $90,000 was grossly inadequate. Whereas in Cragin, at least one appraisal was
entered into evidence for the circuit court to review, no such appraisal of the property was
- 11 - 1-19-1013
proffered by defendant here. See Cragin, 262 Ill. App. 3d at 117. Instead, defendant merely
speculates that the insufficient description of the property contributed to the low sale price “of
less than 26% of the judgment amount” as it did not adequately inform prospective buyers who
sought the type of home at issue. We note that the report of sale indicated that the amount due
under the judgment was $306,522.03. The report of sale also included interest ($24,779.95),
publication costs ($1150), postjudgment advances ($7817.25), and a selling officer commission
($350), for a total amount due of $340,619.23. Plaintiff bid $90,000 at the judicial sale, leaving a
deficiency of $250,619.23. However, the judgment amount is not equivalent or representative of
the value of the property. See Illini Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Doering, 162 Ill. App. 3d
768, 771 (1987) (“There is no requirement that the sale price be equal to the value of the
property, and there is no provision for determining the value of the property in setting the
amount of the deficiency.”). Indeed, the initial mortgage foreclosure complaint in this case was
filed in 2010. Over the eight years it took for the property to be up for judicial sale, the amount
due and owing necessarily increased. In fact, the complaint alerted defendant that approximately
$32 (representing interest alone) would accrue each day during the litigation. Third, unlike in
Cragin, the deficiency in this case was not against the mortgagor personally but was an in rem
deficiency against the property. See Cragin, 262 Ill. App. 3d at 117; Metrobank v. Cannatello,
2012 IL App (1st) 110529, ¶¶ 19-20 (discussing in rem and personal deficiencies under the
Foreclosure Law). Under these facts, defendant has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate
good cause as to why the judicial sale should be held invalid. See Sewickley, LLC v. Chicago
Title Land Trust Co., 2012 IL App (1st) 112977, ¶ 35.
¶ 25 Lastly, we observe that it is well recognized that there are many factors that negatively
affect the amount prospective buyers are willing to bid on properties that are judicially sold as a
- 12 - 1-19-1013
result of a judgment of foreclosure. Id. ¶ 34. These include, but are not limited to,
“the overall ascertainable condition of the property, the inability to perform an inspection
of the interior condition of the property, any possible tax liens and other liens against the
property and the lack of any provision of title insurance. Consequently, it is usually the
norm that ‘ “property does not bring its full value at forced sales, and that price depends
on many circumstances from which the debtor must expect to suffer a loss.’ ’ ” Id.
(quoting Doering, 162 Ill. App. 3d at 772, quoting Horney v. Hayes, 11 Ill. 2d 178, 184-
85 (1957)).
Such was the case here.
¶ 26 In sum, defendant has failed to demonstrate that the property sold for significantly less
than its value and, therefore, has not demonstrated “good cause” to invalidate the sale. The
phrase “good cause shown” requires more than what defendant has offered here. Even in a case
where the foreclosure defendants argued defects coupled with an allegedly low sale price and
produced a property appraisal to contradict the plaintiff’s opinion about the property’s fair
market value, this was insufficient to constitute good cause to vacate the foreclosure and the
court rejected their claim as speculative. See Cragin, 262 Ill. App. 3d at 119-22.
Speculation that the property is worth more than the highest bid at the judicial sale is not proof.
Accordingly, we conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it entered the
order approving the sale.
¶ 27 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 28 For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is
affirmed.
¶ 29 Affirmed.
- 13 - 1-19-1013
Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 10-CH-1743; the Hon. Gerald V. Cleary, Judge, presiding.
Attorneys Amir Mohabbat, of Chicagoland & Suburban Law Firm, P.C., of for Oak Park, for appellant. Appellant:
Attorneys Jena Valdetero, Robert Brunner, Kristin Howard Corradini, and for Katharine F. Lessaris, of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, of Appellee: Chicago, for appellee.
- 14 -