IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

In the Matter of TODD A.

LaMONT and CHRISTINA A.

LaMONT,

 Co-Debtors-Appellees,

LYUBOMIR ALEXANDROV,

 Movant-Appellant.

Case No. 12 C 2481

Appeal from Unite4

States Bankruptcy Court

Northern District of Illinois

USBC No. 08 B 32995

Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This case comes before the Court on Appellant Lyubomir

Alexandrov’s appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of his

Motion to Modify the Automatic Stay in the case of In re LaMont,

Case Number 08-BK-32995. For the reasons stated herein, the

judgment of the Bankruptcy Court is affirmed and modification of

the stay is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

First, the Court notes that Appellees Todd and Christina

LaMont (the “Appellees”) did not file a brief in response to

Appellant’s brief. The response brief was initially due on

June 15, 2012. On July 19, 2012, because they had still not filed

a brief, the Court gave them seven additional days to do so. Those

seven days passed without a response from Appellees. The only
facts the Court has available to it, therefore, are from

Appellant’s brief and the bankruptcy record on appeal.

Appellant Lyubomir Alexandrov (hereinafter, the “Appellant” or

“Tax Purchaser” or “Purchaser”) seeks a lifting of the stay so that

he can seek issuance of the deed to debtors’ property.

On November 14, 2008, Appellant purchased the delinquent real

estate taxes on the subject property at 800 Grant Drive in Minooka,

Illinois, (located in Grundy County) which was owned by Appellees. 

When he made the purchase, Appellant received a Certificate of

Purchase from the County Collector of Grundy County, the effect of

which will be discussed in greater detail below. Appellees had

until November 14, 2011 to redeem the delinquent taxes and retain

their property.

On December 3, 2008, Appellees filed a voluntary Chapter 13

Petition and a proposed Chapter 13 Plan (“the Plan”). The proposed

Plan was modified and then confirmed on February 12, 2009. The

confirmed Plan did not provide for any payments to be made to

Appellant. It did, however, list Grundy County as a secured

creditor and provided for the repayment of delinquent taxes to

Grundy County over the life of the Plan.

Appellant alleges that at the time of the Plan’s confirmation,

he had still not received notice of Appellees’ bankruptcy

proceeding. It is unclear when exactly he received notice, but on

January 26, 2012, Appellant filed a Motion in Bankruptcy Court to

- 2 -
modify the automatic stay entered pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362. 

Appellees responded to this Motion on February 10, 2012. Appellant

was not given an opportunity to reply and on February 17, 2012, the

Bankruptcy Court orally denied Appellant’s motion. After the court

denied his motion for relief from that judgment, Appellant filed

this appeal.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant 28

U.S.C. § 158. Under Bankruptcy Court Rule 8013, the Court must

accept the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact unless they are

clearly erroneous. There are no such factual issues relevant to

the determination in this case. The Court reviews the bankruptcy

court’s conclusions of law under a de novo standard. Colon v.

Option One Mortg. Corp., 319 F.3d 912, 916 (7th Cir. 2003). 

III. ANALYSIS

The issue presented by this appeal is one on which bankruptcy

and district courts in Illinois are split. The split stems from

the different approaches taken when characterizing the rights held

by a purchaser at an Illinois Tax Sale; the rights held by the taxdelinquent landowner and bankruptcy debtor; and the treatment of

these rights within the context of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy

proceeding. Though this split has yielded different results in

similar cases for some years, the Seventh Circuit has not yet taken

the opportunity to endorse one of these approaches over the other. 

- 3 -
For the reasons explained below, this Court adopts the view

that modification of the automatic stay is inappropriate in this

situation. In an effort to address these issues fully, the Court

will discuss the competing approaches and reasoning regarding the

treatment of a tax sale in bankruptcy. It is important first,

however, to explain the Illinois Tax Sale process.

A. Illinois Tax Sale Process

The Illinois Tax Code states that on January 1 of each year,

a lien attaches to all non-exempt real property securing the

payment of the taxes levied on that property in that year. 35 ILL.

COMP. STAT. 200/21-75. This lien has priority over all other liens

on the property, even those prior in time. Id. If the taxes are

not paid, the county may bring an action to foreclose the lien and

seek a judgment and order of sale in the Illinois Circuit Court. 

Id.; 35 ILL. COMP. STAT. 200/21-150 through 21-185. The landowner/

tax debtor then has the opportunity to pay the delinquent taxes and

interest up to and including one business day before the sale. 35

ILL. COMP. STAT. 200/21-165. 

If the taxes are not paid, the collector may proceed with the

tax sale. 35 ILL. COMP. STAT. 200/21-205. Potential tax purchasers

(or bidders) compete or “reverse bid” for the right to buy the

taxes. Each bidder agrees to pay the taxes and any interest and

fees due to the county. In addition, tax purchasers can make a

return on their investment by charging the landowner a “penalty” or

- 4 -
premium interest rate on top of that sum. 35 ILL. COMP. STAT.

200/21-215.

The penalty is where the “reverse” bidding occurs. The

maximum penalty a bidder may charge a landowner is 18 percent. Id. 

The potential purchasers engage in reverse bidding, offering

successively lower penalties. The winner is the bidder offering

the lowest penalty rate.

That winning tax purchaser pays to the county all taxes,

interest and fees due and owing. In return, once the tax sale is

approved by a judge, the purchaser receives a “certificate of

purchase” and the tax lien is extinguished. 35 ILL. COMP. STAT.

200/21-240, 200/21-75. The landowner/tax debtor, however, remains

personally liable to the county for the taxes even after the lien

is extinguished. 35 ILL. COMP. STAT. 200/21-440.

For a prescribed period after the tax sale (during the

redemption period), the landowner may still redeem his property by

depositing the full amount of delinquent taxes, plus interest and

the appropriate penalty, with the county clerk. 35 ILL. COMP. STAT.

200/21-355. The county then passes this along to the tax

purchaser.

If the landowner does not redeem the property within the

redemption period, the certificate of purchase gives the tax

purchaser the right to petition the circuit court for a tax deed at

any time within six (6) months of the expiration of the applicable

- 5 -
redemption period. 35 ILL. COMP. STAT. 200/21-260(f), 200/21-350. 

The purchaser cannot receive the deed, however, until after

expiration of the redemption period. After the redemption period,

the circuit court may order the county collector to issue the

purchaser a tax deed and place the purchaser in possession of the

property. 35 ILL. COMP. STAT. 200/22-40.

Before the redemption period expires and such a tax deed is

issued and recorded, however, the mere issuance of the certificate

of purchase does not affect the legal or equitable title of the

property, which remain with the landowner through the applicable

redemption period. See Matter of Application of Cook Cnty.

Treasurer, 542 N.E.2d 15, 16 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989). Before

expiration of the redemption period, the purchaser holds only “an

interest in obtaining a tax deed – an interest that Illinois law

characterizes as a lien in his favor.” Ballinger v. Geithner, 437

Fed.Appx. 480, 482 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing In re Application of

Rosewell, 537 N.E.2d 762, 765 (Ill. 1989)). This characterization

becomes important within the bankruptcy context and will be

discussed further below.

One more aspect of tax sales is necessary to understand the

issues in this case. The Tax Code also provides several grounds

upon which the state court may order a sale in error, thereby

requiring the county to refund the tax purchaser the full amount

paid to obtain the certificate of purchase. 35 ILL. COMP. STAT.

- 6 -
200/21-310. If a bankruptcy petition under Chapters 7, 11, 12, or

13 is filed by or against the landowner before the expiration of

the redemption period, the purchaser (and only the purchaser) may

assert a sale in error and seek a refund of the amount paid to the

county. Id. at 200/21-310(b)(1) If a sale in error is ordered,

the county makes a full refund to the purchaser, including any

interest accrued, penalties, fees, or other taxes paid by the

purchaser. 35 ILL. COMP. STAT. 200/21-315 through 316.

B. Whether a Tax Sale Gives Rise

to a Claim Treatable in Bankruptcy

To determine whether a tax purchaser is entitled to

modification of the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy

Code, the first question the Court must address is whether and to

what extent a “claim” within the bankruptcy context exists after a

tax sale. This Court adopts the view that where the landowner

files a bankruptcy petition prior to the expiration of the

redemption period, both the tax purchaser and the county hold

claims in bankruptcy against the landowner.

The Bankruptcy Code provides two definitions of a “claim.”

Section 101(5)(A) defines it as a “right to payment, whether or not

such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed,

contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured, or

unsecured.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). Section 101(5)(B) defines a

claim as a “right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance

if such breach gives rise to a right to payment, whether or not

- 7 -
such right to an equitable remedy is reduced to judgment, fixed,

contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured, or

unsecured.” This language indicates Congress’ intent to “adopt the

broadest available definition of ‘claim.’” Johnson v. Home State

Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 83 (1991). 

There are competing views as to whether the tax purchaser

holds a claim treatable in bankruptcy. One court focused on the

relationship between the tax purchaser and the landowner to hold

that no such claim exists. See In re Blue, 247 B.R. 748 (Bankr.

N.D. Ill. 2000). The court in Blue determined that because there

is no direct creditor-debtor relationship between the purchaser and

the landowner, the purchaser has no treatable claim in bankruptcy. 

247 B.R. 751-52.

This interpretation relies on the Illinois Supreme Court’s

holding in A.P. Properties, Inc. v. Goshinsky, 714 N.E.2d 519 (Ill.

1999). There, the court was interpreting the Uniform Fraudulent

Transfer Act (the “UFTA”) within the context of an Illinois tax

sale. To sustain a cause of action under the UFTA, one must

demonstrate that he is a “creditor” with a “claim” against a

“debtor” as those terms are defined in the statute. 740 ILL. COMP.

STAT. 160/2(c), (d), (f). The court found that the Illinois Tax

Code does not create creditor-debtor relationship between the tax

purchaser and the landowner after a tax sale. Id. at 530. 

Therefore, the tax purchaser holds no “claim” against the landowner

- 8 -
under the UFTA. Id. Citing the fact that the UFTA and the

Bankruptcy Code employ similar definitions of the terms “claim” and

“creditor,” the Blue court relied on A.P. Properties and held that

a tax purchaser is not a “creditor,” does not hold a “claim”

against the landowner in bankruptcy, and is therefore not bound by

the terms of the landowner’s Chapter 13 Plan. Blue, 247 B.R. at

751-52.

A slightly different approach focuses on the rights of the tax

purchaser rather than on the relationship between the purchaser and

the landowner. See Jackson v. Midwest P’ship, 176 B.R. 156, 158

(N.D. Ill. 1994). The Jackson court found that the certificate of

purchase issued after a tax sale “represents an absolute right to

receive title to the property if redemption is not made within the

statutory period.” Id. at 158. The Jackson court compared the

rights of a tax purchaser to the rights of a traditional lien

holder and found that the purchaser does not hold a lien against

the property. Id. It therefore concluded that the purchaser does

not have a “right to payment” as contemplated by the Bankruptcy

Code’s definition of “claim.” Id.

The Court respectfully declines to follow the reasoning in

those cases and is instead persuaded by the reasoning of In re

Bates, 270 B.R. 455 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2001) and its progeny. See

also, In re Kasco, 378 B.R. 207 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2007). The Bates

court first noted the Supreme Court’s broad interpretation of

- 9 -
“claim” in Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare v. Davenport,

495 U.S. 552 (1990). There, the Supreme Court held that where a

convicted criminal (and bankruptcy debtor) had been ordered to make

restitution payments in the criminal case, a right to payment

(i.e., a “claim”) existed in bankruptcy despite the fact that no

there was no civil process available to enforce the restitution

order. Pennsylvania, 495 U.S. at 559-60 (noting that the fact that

the “enforcement mechanism is criminal rather than civil does not

alter the restitution order’s character as a ‘right to payment’”). 

(Congress later expressly prohibited the discharge in bankruptcy of

restitution orders, but the Supreme Court noted that legislation

did not disturb the Court’s “general conclusions on the breadth of

the definition of ‘claim’ under the Code.” See Johnson v. Home

State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 83 n.4 (1991)).

In Davenport, there was also no traditional creditor-debtor

relationship between either the victim and the criminal or the

Probation Department and the criminal, because the only enforcement

mechanism was the threat of imprisonment. Davenport, 495 U.S. at

559-60. Similarly, here, the Illinois Tax Code does not provide a

civil process for obtaining payment of the redemption amount after

the tax sale. Instead, the “tax purchaser holds a claim against a

debtor in bankruptcy – a ‘right to payment’ enforced by potential

loss of the debtor’s home – under § 101(5)(A).” Bates, 270 B.R. at

463. Contrary to the reasoning in Blue, the existence of a

- 10 -
traditional creditor-debtor relationship is not essential to the

existence of a claim in bankruptcy. Id. at n. 4. 

The Court also disagrees with the Jackson court’s view that

the purchaser does not hold a lien because the view appears to be

contrary to the characterization of a tax purchaser’s interest

under Illinois law. As noted above, Illinois law views the tax

purchaser’s interest as an in rem lien enforceable by receipt of a

tax deed after expiration of the redemption period. Application of

Rosewell, 537 N.E.2d at 765 (“When the court confirms the sale, the

county’s lien is extinguished, and a new lien arises by operation

of law in favor of the purchaser”). Appellant’s lien, as discussed

below, is a claim that can be treated in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy

proceeding.

The view that a bankruptcy claim exists in the tax sale

context finds additional support in the definition of claim in

§ 101(5)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Seventh Circuit has held

that where a right to payment and a right to an equitable remedy

exist as “alternative” remedies for a breach of some performance,

a claim exists under § 101(5)(B). In re Udell, 18 F.3d 403, 408

(7th Cir. 1994). The Bates court found, as does this Court, that

a tax purchaser receives alternative remedies against the

landowner: “either a court order directing issuance of a deed to

the property or else payment of the taxes (with whatever penalty

- 11 -
was assessed at the sale) through redemption.” Bates, 270 B.R. at

464. 

For all of these reasons, the Court finds that Appellant holds

a “claim” against the landowner/debtor in bankruptcy.

C. Proper Treatment of Tax Purchaser’s

Claim in Bankruptcy 

Having determined that a claim exists, the focus turns to the

manner in which the claim is to be treated in a Chapter 13

bankruptcy proceeding. There are a number of provisions of the

Bankruptcy Code that are crucial to a comprehensive discussion of

this issue. The first of these are the sections that discusses the

meaning of “secured claim” and “lien.” Though the Bankruptcy Code

provides no separate definition, the designation of a claim as

“secured” is addressed in Section 506. That section states that

the term “secured claim” includes an “allowed claim of a creditor

secured by a lien on property in which the estate has an interest.” 

11 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1). A “lien” is defined by § 101(37) as “a

charge against or interest in property to secure payment of a debt

or performance of an obligation.” 

As long as the landowner files a bankruptcy petition before

the expiration of the period of redemption, this is precisely the

type of claim that the tax purchaser holds. As noted above, before

the expiration of the redemption period, the landowner still

retains legal and equitable title in the property. Application of

the Cook Cnty. Treasurer, 542 N.E.2d at 16. The tax purchaser

- 12 -
holds an interest in obtaining a tax deed to that property, which

Illinois law views as a lien on the property. Application of

Rosewell, 537 N.E.2d at 765. Where the debtor files in bankruptcy

before the expiration of the redemption period, his interest in the

property (including the right to redemption) passes to the

bankruptcy estate, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541(a), and the tax

purchaser holds a lien which qualifies as a secured claim in

bankruptcy. Bates, 270 B.R. at 465 n.5. 

Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code contains the other

provisions pertinent to this discussion. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

§ 1322(b)(2), the Chapter 13 plan may generally modify the rights

of holders of secured claims. That section is limited however, by

§ 1325(a)(5)(B) which provides that under a Chapter 13 plan, the

secured creditor retains the lien securing his claim until the debt

is paid in full, which can be done with periodic payments over the

life of the plan. Bates, 247 B.R. at 465-66. The last important

section within the context of a tax sale is Section 108(b). That

section states that where “applicable non-bankruptcy law” fixes a

period within which a Chapter 13 debtor may “cure a default, or

perform an other similar act, and such period has not expired

before the date of the filing of the petition,” the trustee may

only “cure, or perform, as the case may be,” before the later of

the expiration of that period, or 60 days after the order for

relief. 11 U.S.C. § 108(b).

- 13 -
Here, again, there are different approaches to how these

sections interact to affect the rights of the tax purchaser and the

landowner in a Chapter 13 proceeding. For the reasons explained

below, this Court adopts the view that § 108(b) does not restrict

a debtor’s right to modify the secured claim of a tax purchaser in

the Chapter 13 plan.

One of the main incentives a debtor has for filing a

Chapter 13 petition, as opposed to a Chapter 7 petition, is the

ability to modify the rights of secured creditors. Bates, 270 B.R.

at 466. The debtor is able to retain the value of the collateral

and pay the value of the secured claim in installments over the

life of the plan. Id. The secured claim of a tax purchaser should

be no different. 

Section 108(b) seems to set a limit on the amount of time a

trustee has to cure a default after the filing of a bankruptcy

petition. However, “[n]othing in § 108(b) transforms the extension

of a non-bankruptcy right into a negation of bankruptcy rights

specifically accorded elsewhere in the Code.” Bates, 270 B.R. at

466. Section 108(b) should not be read to limit the debtor’s right

to modify the tax purchaser’s (or the county’s) secured claim

pursuant to §§ 1322(b)(2) and 1325(a)(5). Id.

Courts taking the opposing view of the interaction of these

sections typically rely on the Seventh Circuit’s decision in In re

Tynan, 773 F.2d 177 (1985). See In re Murray, 276 B.R. 869, 876

- 14 -
(Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2002); Jackson, 176 B.R. at 159. In Tynan, the

court was examining Section 108(b) as it applied to the statutory

redemption period after a mortgage foreclosure sale. It held that

where a bankruptcy petition is filed before expiration of the

statutory foreclosure redemption period, Section 108(b) extends the

period for only 60 days and does not allow for an extension of that

period over the course of a Chapter 13 plan. In re Tynan, 773 F.2d

at 179-80. 

As explained by the Bates court, however, the Tynan holding is

not applicable to the situation of a tax purchaser’s claim after a

tax sale. Bates, 270 B.R. at 466 n.7. The Tynan court

specifically held that § 1322(b)(5), which provides a mechanism for

curing a default, did not apply because a foreclosure judgment had

been entered and a sale had already occurred. Tynan, 772 F.2d at

178. Thus, there was no way to treat the mortgage claim in

bankruptcy and the debtor’s only relief would have come from the

60-day extension of § 108(b). That is not the case here. As

already discussed, the issue here, just as in Bates, is the

debtor’s right to modify the tax purchaser’s secured claim. Bates,

270 B.R. at 466 n. 7.

The Court, therefore, agrees with Bates that Tynan does not

control here and that Section 108(b) does not limit the Appellees’

right to modify Appellant’s claim in his Chapter 13 plan.

- 15 -
D. Applicability of the Automatic Stay

and Whether Modification Is Appropriate

The final issue to address, then, is the applicability of the

automatic stay to proceedings for issuance of a tax deed. Not

surprisingly, this is another question on which courts disagree and

have come to various conclusions not only on the stay’s

applicability, but also on the tax purchaser’s ability to gain

relief from the stay in order to obtain a tax deed.

Some courts have held that the automatic stay is simply

inapplicable to prevent a purchaser from seeking a tax deed after

expiration of the redemption period. See Jackson, 176 B.R. 156;

McKeever v. McClandon, 132 B.R. 996 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1991). The

Court respectfully disagrees with the reasoning in those cases. 

The Jackson court relied primarily on the exception enumerated in

11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(3) which excludes from the stay’s applicability

“any act to perfect, or to maintain or continue the perfection of,

an interest in property to the extent that the trustee’s rights and

powers are subject to such perfection . . .” Jackson, 176 B.R. at

159. As the Bates court pointed out, however, an action seeking

issuance of a tax deed is not an action to “perfect an interest” in

property. Bates, 270 B.R. at 468. Perfection of a property

interest “refers to the steps necessary to obtain priority over

other creditors claiming an interest in collateral.” Id. When a

tax purchaser petitions for issuance of a tax deed, he is not

- 16 -
“perfecting” his interest, but rather seeking to enforce his

security interest in that property. Id. Therefore, § 362(b)(3) is

not applicable here.

Other courts have held that while the automatic stay does work

to prevent any action seeking issuance of a tax deed, the purchaser

is able to obtain relief from the stay for cause under 11 U.S.C.

§ 362(d)(1). See In re Wells Properties, Inc., 102 B.R. 685

(Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1989); In re Bequette, 184 B.R. 327 (Bankr. S.D.

Ill. 1995); In re Murray, 276 B.R. 869 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2002). 

Under this approach, the stay is applicable because even after

expiration of the redemption period and until the tax deed is

issued, the landowner/debtor still holds legal title to the

property. Bequette, 184 B.R. at 337. Transfer of title to the

purchaser, therefore, requires affirmative action on behalf of the

purchaser (i.e., petitioning the circuit court for an order issuing

a tax deed) and absent an order for relief, the automatic stay

would bar such action. Id. According to this approach, however,

relief from the stay is “easily obtained because the tax purchaser,

after expiration of the redemption period, has an apparent right to

immediate possession of the property, which the debtor would be

unable to adequately protect.” Id.; 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

The Court agrees with the portion of this analysis regarding

the applicability of the automatic stay, but disagrees that relief

- 17 -
from the stay is appropriate in this situation, where the

redemption period had not expired before the bankruptcy filing.

When the secured claim of a tax purchaser is treated in a

Chapter 13 plan, the purchaser’s rights are still adequately

protected and therefore, the stay should not be modified for cause. 

As discussed above, the Purchaser’s interest in this case is

protected because Section “1325(a)(5) requires that a secured

creditor’s lien remain in place to secure the debtor’s performance

under the debtor’s plan.” Bates, 270 B.R. at 468. If the debtor

fails to make the required plan payments, the tax purchaser may

proceed with enforcement of his lien. Id.

Alternatively, if the debtors fulfill their Chapter 13

obligations, the county will be paid back in full for the taxes,

interest and penalty, and the county will pass this along to the

Purchaser.

Finally, the Purchaser’s interest is more immediately

protected because he continues to possess the right to assert a

sale in error due to the bankruptcy filing, in which case he would

be entitled to a full refund of the purchase price plus interest. 

35 ILL. COMP. STAT. 200/21-310, 315, 316. 

For these reasons, the Court finds that a tax purchaser’s

rights are adequately protected when payment of the lien is

provided for in the Chapter 13 plan. Therefore, modification of

the stay for cause under § 362(d) is not appropriate.

- 18 -
E. Lack of Notice and Provision of the Tax

Debt in the Chapter 13 Plan 

Appellant argues that because he was not given proper notice

of the bankruptcy proceedings, and therefore was not given an

opportunity to object to the Chapter 13 plan, he should not be

bound by it and should be free to seek and obtain a tax deed. The

Court disagrees.

Appellant argues that the plan does not adequately protect his

interest and, because he was not given notice before it was

confirmed, he had no opportunity to object to it. First, as noted

above, the facts regarding any notice of the bankruptcy, or lack

thereof, are unclear. Appellant only states that he was not given

notice initially and was not notified when the Chapter 13 plan was

confirmed. Appellant must have received notice at some point, as

he filed the motion which gave rise to this appeal. There is no

indication, however, of when or how that notice came.

Notwithstanding that lack of clarity, however, the Court

rejects the argument that Appellant’s interest is not adequately

protected in the Chapter 13 plan due to his alleged lack of notice. 

Appellant admits that the plan does provide for repayment of the

tax debt to the county (though he argues that it does not

adequately provide for interest on the debt), which would in turn

be refunded to Appellant. As explained in the preceding section,

if that debt is not repaid in full, Appellant may still seek to

enforce his lien by obtaining a tax deed. Bates, 270 B.R. at 468. 

- 19 -
His lien remains intact throughout the bankruptcy proceeding. Id.;

11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5). Furthermore, Appellant still has the

option of asserting a sale in error, which would result in a refund

of the purchase price paid at the tax sale. 35 ILL. COMP. STAT.

200/21-310, 315, 316. The alleged lack of notice, therefore, does

not provide a reason to reverse the bankruptcy court’s decision.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Bankruptcy Court’s Decision

Denying Appellant’s Motion for Modification of the Automatic Stay

is affirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge

United States District Court

DATE: 12/27/2012

- 20 -