Illinois Official Reports 

Appellate Court

In re Application of the County Treasurer & ex officio County Collector,

2014 IL App (2d) 130995

Appellate Court 

Caption

In re APPLICATION OF THE COUNTY TREASURER AND 

ex officio COUNTY COLLECTOR, for Judgment and Order of Sale 

Against Real Estate Returned Delinquent for Nonpayment of General 

Taxes and/or Special Assessments for the Year 2008 and/or Prior 

Years (John Zajicek, d/b/a Z Financial, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Lloyd 

Giordano, Respondent-Appellant).

District & No. Second District

Docket No. 2-13-0995

Filed

Rehearing denied

June 30, 2014

October 3, 2014

Held

(Note: This syllabus 

constitutes no part of the 

opinion of the court but 

has been prepared by the 

Reporter of Decisions 

for the convenience of 

the reader.)

In proceedings on a petition for a tax deed where respondent redeemed 

his tax delinquent property under protest based on the argument that 

petitioner failed to comply with the Property Tax Code, the trial court 

erred in striking respondent’s protest, since petitioner failed to 

properly notify respondent of an extension of the redemption period, 

and in view of petitioner’s right to seek a refund of the purchase price 

and other taxes paid and posted to the tax judgment by showing a 

bona fide attempt to comply with the statutory requirements to obtain 

a tax deed, the cause was remanded to allow the trial court to rule on 

that issue and make an appropriate award of the redemption money to 

petitioner or respondent.

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Boone County, No. 12-TX-7; the 

Hon. Brendan A. Maher, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Reversed and remanded with directions.
- 2 - 

Counsel on

Appeal

Nathan J. Noble, of Belvidere, for appellant.

Thaddeus M. Bond, Jr., of Law Offices of Thaddeus M. Bond Jr. & 

Associates, of Waukegan, for appellee.

Panel JUSTICE SCHOSTOK delivered the judgment of the court, with 

opinion.

Presiding Justice Burke and Justice Birkett concurred in the judgment 

and opinion.

 OPINION 

¶ 1 On April 5, 2012, the petitioner, John Zajicek, d/b/a Z Financial, filed a petition for a tax 

deed as to property owned by the respondent, Lloyd Giordano. On October 2, 2012, the 

respondent redeemed his property under protest, arguing that the funds he paid should be 

returned to him because the petitioner had not complied with the requisite provisions of the 

Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/1-1 et seq. (West 2012)). After the trial court struck the 

respondent’s protest, the respondent filed a timely notice of appeal. For the reasons that 

follow, we reverse and remand for additional proceedings. 

¶ 2 BACKGROUND 

¶ 3 The respondent owns property in Boone County. He failed to pay his 2008 real estate 

taxes on that property in a timely fashion. On November 6, 2009, Z Financial, LLC, 

purchased the unpaid taxes and received a tax certificate. 

¶ 4 On February 3, 2010, Z Financial (an entity distinct from Z Financial, LLC) provided 

notice to the respondent that the period for redemption was extended to June 4, 2012. 

¶ 5 On April 5, 2012, Z Financial provided notice to the respondent that the period for 

redemption was extended to October 4, 2012. On that same day, Zajicek, as managing 

member of Z Financial, LLC, filed a document indicating that it was assigning all of its rights 

in the tax certificate to the petitioner. Also on that day, the petitioner filed a petition for a tax 

deed. 

¶ 6 On October 2, 2012, the respondent redeemed his property by paying the unpaid taxes, 

plus fees and interest. The respondent also filed a document indicating that he was redeeming 

his property under protest pursuant to section 21-380 of the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 

200/21-380 (West 2012)). The respondent argued that, because the petitioner had not 

complied with all of the requisite provisions of the Property Tax Code in attempting to obtain 

a tax deed, the respondent was entitled to all of the funds he had paid to redeem his property. 

¶ 7 On February 25, 2013, the trial court struck the respondent’s protest. The trial court 

further dismissed the petition for a tax deed in light of the redemption and ordered the Boone 

County clerk to remit all posted funds to the petitioner upon surrender of the tax certificate. 
- 3 - 

Following the denial of his motion to reconsider, the respondent filed a timely notice of 

appeal. 

¶ 8 ANALYSIS 

¶ 9 The respondent raises four contentions on appeal. However, as the respondent’s second 

contention is dispositive, we address only that issue. In that contention, the respondent argues 

that the trial court should have sustained his protest because the petitioner failed to comply 

with the requisite notice provisions of the Property Tax Code and thus could not have 

obtained a tax deed. Specifically, the respondent argues that any tax deed had to be recorded 

by November 6, 2012, unless the respondent was given notice that the redemption period had 

been extended. Although Z Financial provided such notice on February 3, 2010, that notice 

was not valid, because Z Financial did not have any rights in the tax certificate when it gave 

such notice. Because the petitioner failed to comply with the requisite notice provisions of 

the Property Tax Code, the respondent insists, the trial court should have ordered that all of 

the funds that he deposited with the Boone County clerk be returned to him. 

¶ 10 The respondent’s argument requires us to construe the following provisions of the 

Property Tax Code. Section 21-380 of the Property Tax Code pertains to the redemption of 

delinquent real estate taxes under protest. That section provides in pertinent part: 

“Redemption under protest. Any person redeeming under this Section at a time 

subsequent to the filing of a petition under Section 22-30 or 21-445 [(35 ILCS 

200/22-30, 21-445 (West 2012))], who desires to preserve his or her right to defend 

against the petition for a tax deed, shall accompany the deposit for redemption with a 

writing [setting forth the objections.] 

 ***

 *** The specified grounds for the objections shall be limited to those defenses as 

would provide sufficient basis to deny entry of an order for issuance of a tax deed. 

*** 

 ***

 The county clerk shall enter the redemption as provided in Section 21-230 [(35 

ILCS 200/21-230 (West 2012))] and shall note the redemption under protest. The 

redemption money so deposited shall not be distributed to the holder of the certificate 

of purchase but shall be retained by the county clerk pending disposition of the 

petition filed under Section 22-30. 

 ***

 When the party redeeming appears and presents a defense, the court shall hear and 

determine the matter. If the defense is not sustained, the court shall order the protest 

stricken and direct the county clerk to distribute the redemption money upon 

surrender of the certificate of purchase and shall order the party redeeming to pay the 

petitioner reasonable expenses, actually incurred, including the cost of withheld 

redemption money, together with a reasonable attorneys fee. Upon a finding 

sustaining the protest in whole or in part, the court may declare the sale to be a sale in 

error under Section 21-310 or Section 22-45 [(35 ILCS 200/21-310, 22-45 (West 

2012))], and shall direct the county clerk to return all or part of the redemption money 

or deposit to the party redeeming.” 35 ILCS 200/21-380 (West 2012). 
- 4 - 

Section 22-40 requires strict compliance with the notice provisions of the Property Tax Code 

before a deed is issued. That section states: 

“If the redemption period expires and the property has not been redeemed and all 

taxes and special assessments which became due and payable subsequent to the sale 

have been paid and all forfeitures and sales which occur subsequent to the sale have 

been redeemed and the notices required by law have been given and all advancements 

of public funds under the police power made by a city, village or town under Section 

22-35 have been paid and the petitioner has complied with all the provisions of law 

entitling him or her to a deed, the court shall so find and shall 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. The court shall 

insist on strict compliance with Section 22-10 through 22-25.” 35 ILCS 200/22-40 

(West 2012). 

Section 22-10 provides: 

“Notice of expiration of period of redemption. A purchaser or assignee shall not be 

entitled to a tax deed to the property sold unless, not less than 3 months nor more than 

6 months prior to the expiration of the period of redemption, he or she gives notice of 

the sale and the date of expiration of the period of redemption to the owners, 

occupants, and parties interested in the property, including any mortgagee of record 

***.” 35 ILCS 200/22-10 (West 2012). 

Section 22-85 provides a basis to deny a tax deed. That section provides in pertinent part: 

“Failure to timely take out and record deed; deed is void. 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 2012). 

¶ 11 In interpreting a statute, the primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the intent 

of the legislature. Solon v. Midwest Medical Records Ass’n, 236 Ill. 2d 433, 440 (2010). The 

legislature’s intent in enacting a statute is best determined by the plain and ordinary meaning 

of the statutory language. Id. “In determining the plain meaning of the statute, we consider 

the statute in its entirety, the subject it addresses, and the apparent intent of the legislature in 

enacting it.” Id.

¶ 12 When the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the court must give it effect 

without resorting to other aids of construction. Id. The statute is deemed ambiguous if it is 

capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed persons in two or more different 

ways. Id. Courts should construe statutes so as to yield logical and meaningful results and to 

avoid constructions that render specific language superfluous or meaningless. 

In re Application of the County Treasurer, 2012 IL App (1st) 101976, ¶ 37 (CCPI). Courts do 

not depart from plain statutory language by reading into it exceptions, limitations, or 

conditions that conflict with the expressed intent. Solon, 236 Ill. 2d at 441. Courts may also 

consider the consequences that would result from construing the statute one way or the other. 

Id.
- 5 - 

¶ 13 A statute should be interpreted as a whole, meaning that different sections of the same 

statute should be considered in reference to one another so that they are given harmonious 

effect. Michigan Avenue National Bank v. County of Cook, 191 Ill. 2d 493, 504 (2000). One 

section of a statute should not be interpreted in a way that renders another section of the same 

statute irrelevant. CCPI, 2012 IL App (1st) 101976, ¶ 38. 

¶ 14 Section 21-380 of the Property Tax Code provides that a redemption under protest may 

be sustained only on those grounds that would provide a basis to deny the issuance of a tax 

deed. 35 ILCS 200/21-380 (West 2012). Section 21-350 of the Property Tax Code provides 

that the period of redemption is two years from the date of sale, unless that period is 

extended. 35 ILCS 200/21-350 (West 2012). Section 21-385 of the Property Tax Code sets 

forth that the purchaser or his assignee may extend the redemption period for one additional 

year if he provides notice to the property owner that the redemption period has been 

extended. 35 ILCS 200/21-385 (West 2012). Section 22-85 of the Property Tax Code 

provides that, if a tax deed is not recorded within one year of when the redemption period 

ends, the tax certificate holder loses his right to obtain a tax deed. 35 ILCS 200/22-85 (West 

2012). Section 22-40 of the Property Tax Code provides that a court must insist on strict 

compliance with section 22-10 of the Property Tax Code before it issues a tax deed. 35 ILCS 

200/22-40 (West 2012). Section 22-10 of the Property Tax Code provides that the purchaser 

or his assignee shall not be entitled to a tax deed unless he gives the owner three to six 

months’ notice of the expiration of the redemption period. 35 ILCS 200/22-10 (West 2012). 

¶ 15 Here, Z Financial, LLC, purchased the unpaid taxes and received a tax certificate on 

November 6, 2009. The redemption period therefore expired on November 6, 2011, unless 

the period was extended. 35 ILCS 200/21-350 (West 2012). Z Financial, LLC, did not extend 

the redemption period. The petitioner therefore would be entitled to a tax deed only if he 

strictly complied with section 22-10 of the Property Tax Code and gave the respondent three 

to six months’ notice that the redemption period was ending on November 6, 2011. 35 ILCS 

200/22-40 (West 2012). Because the petitioner did not strictly comply with section 22-10 of 

the Property Tax Code, the petitioner was not entitled to a tax deed. That was a proper basis 

to sustain the respondent’s protest. 35 ILCS 200/21-380 (West 2012). The trial court 

therefore erred in not sustaining the protest. 

¶ 16 In so ruling, we reject the petitioner’s argument that the notice that Z Financial provided 

to the respondent was sufficient to extend the redemption period. We note that a similar 

argument was rejected by the Appellate Court, First District, in CCPI, 2012 IL App (1st) 

101976. In that case, in June 2006, GJ Venture, LLC (GJ), bought property at a tax sale. The 

original redemption expiration date was June 12, 2008. Id. ¶ 8. On July 11, 2006, GJ 

assigned the certificate of purchase and all of its right, title, and interest in the property to 

Sabre Group, LLC (Sabre). Id. ¶ 9. On April 10, 2008, GJ filed a notice to extend the period 

of redemption to July 25, 2008. Id. ¶ 11. On February 4, 2009, Sabre assigned the certificate 

of purchase to CCPI. Id. ¶ 17. On February 11, 2009, the trial court entered orders 

substituting CCPI as the tax deed petitioner and directing the clerk to issue a tax deed to 

CCPI. CCPI recorded its tax deed on November 4, 2009. Id.

¶ 17 In December 2009, the property owner filed a motion to declare the tax deed void 

pursuant to section 22-85 of the Property Tax Code. Id. ¶ 18. The property owner alleged that 

the tax deed was void because CCPI failed to record it within one year from June 12, 2008, 

the original redemption expiration date. The property owner argued that the deed had to be 
- 6 - 

recorded by June 12, 2009, because GJ’s attempt to extend the redemption period was invalid 

where it had previously assigned away any rights to the property. Id.

¶ 18 The trial court denied the property owner’s motion to dismiss, but the reviewing court 

reversed. Id. ¶¶ 26, 45. The reviewing court explained that only the certificate holder could 

extend the redemption period. Id. ¶ 39. Because GJ had already assigned away its rights in 

the tax certificate to Sabre, GJ had no right to extend the redemption period. Id. ¶ 41 (“ ‘An 

assignment shall vest in the assignee *** all the right and title of the original purchaser.’ ”

(quoting 35 ILCS 200/21-250 (West 2008))). Consequently, the extension filed by GJ was a 

nullity, and the June 12, 2008, expiration date remained in effect. Id. Because no tax deed 

was recorded by June 12, 2009, the tax deed that was ultimately recorded was untimely and 

therefore void. Id.

¶ 19 Here, on February 3, 2010, Z Financial purportedly extended the redemption period until 

June 4, 2012. However, Z Financial did not have any interest in the property until Z 

Financial, LLC, assigned it its rights on April 5, 2010. Thus, the extension that Z Financial 

filed on February 3, 2010, was a nullity and did not extend the redemption period. 

¶ 20 We next consider whether the petitioner is entitled to the return of any of the money spent 

for the tax certificate. In arguing that the petitioner is not, the respondent points to section 

22-85 of the Property Tax Code, which provides that, if a tax purchaser does not timely 

record a deed within one year of the end of the redemption period, then the tax certificate 

becomes void and the tax purchaser is not entitled to any reimbursement for the money he 

spent acquiring the tax certificate. 35 ILCS 200/22-85 (West 2012). Section 22-85 of the 

Property Tax Code does not apply here, because the respondent redeemed his property under 

protest before the time period set forth in that statute had expired.1

 

1We note a possible inconsistency between sections 21-350 and 21-380 of the Property Tax Code. 

Section 21-350 of the Property Tax Code provides that a property owner has two years from the date of 

the sale to redeem his property, unless the redemption period is properly extended (which in this case it 

was not). 35 ILCS 200/21-350 (West 2012). Section 21-380 provides that a redemption under protest 

must be filed after a petition for a tax deed has been filed. 35 ILCS 200/21-380 (West 2012). Section 

21-380 does not specify the last date that a redemption under protest may be filed, only that it must 

occur before the hearing on the petition for a tax deed. Id. Thus, section 21-380 seemingly allows a 

redemption under protest to be filed even after section 21-350’s period for a redemption has expired.

 We need not resolve this possible inconsistency, however, because it would not impact our ultimate 

resolution of the case. Under section 21-380 of the Property Tax Code, the respondent’s redemption 

under protest was timely filed. See A.P. Properties, Inc. v. Goshinsky, 186 Ill. 2d 524, 533 (1999) (the 

provisions of section 21-380 apply to a person redeeming under protest after a petition for tax deed has 

been filed and when the redeemer desires to preserve the right to defend against the petition for a tax 

deed). Further under section 21-350 of the Property Tax Code, although our courts have found that a 

redemption filed after the end of the statutory period is a nullity (In re Application of the County 

Treasurer & ex officio County Collector, 378 Ill. App. 3d 842, 846 (2007)), our courts have also 

determined that a trial court may equitably extend the statutory redemption period (id. at 849) and that 

the tax purchaser may waive strict adherence to the redemption period (In re Application of County 

Collector for Judgment of Sale Against Certain Lands & Lots, 131 Ill. App. 2d 509, 512 (1970)). Here, 

as both the trial court and the petitioner treated the respondent’s redemption under protest as having 

been timely filed due to the petitioner’s attempt to extend the redemption period, we will also treat the 

redemption under protest as timely filed. Based on this determination, the respondent may not argue on 

remand that his redemption under protest was a nullity.
- 7 - 

¶ 21 We instead look to section 21-380 of the Property Tax Code. 35 ILCS 200/21-380 

(West 2012). That section provides that a person may pay the required redemption amount 

under protest by specifying defenses that would provide a sufficient basis to deny the entry of 

an order for issuance of a tax deed. In his redemption under protest, the respondent correctly 

argued that the tax certificate had expired. When the petitioner did not provide timely notice 

of the expiration of the redemption period (35 ILCS 200/22-10 (West 2012)) or file a petition 

for a tax deed within the required time, as the redemption period was not extended (35 ILCS 

200/22-30 (West 2012)), the tax deed petition could have been successfully challenged. 

Under section 21-380 of the Property Tax Code, if a protest is sustained, the court may 

declare the sale to be a sale in error and shall direct the county clerk to return all or part of 

the redemption money to the party redeeming. Here, the trial court should have sustained the 

protest and declared the sale in error. A determination of the amounts to be returned to the 

parties requires that several sections of the Property Tax Code be read together. See In re

Application of the County Collector, 325 Ill. App. 3d 152, 156 (2001) (Darco).

¶ 22 In Darco, the court determined that, once a redemption under protest has been filed, the 

character of the tax deed proceedings changes, “with the tax purchaser attempting to obtain 

the statutory penalty interest and the delinquent taxpayer attempting to ward off the 

purchaser and recover some of the funds it has deposited with the county clerk.” Id. at

155-56. The court noted that the respondent in that case could have defended against the 

petitions for tax deeds without redeeming, because defective notices precluded the tax deeds 

from issuing. Id. at 156. Had that occurred, the petitioner would have been entitled to petition 

for a refund pursuant to section 22-50 of the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/22-50 (West 

1994)) if she could establish that she made a bona fide attempt to comply with the statutory 

requirements for the issuance of a tax deed. See Darco, 325 Ill. App. 3d at 156. The court 

determined that the petitioner should not receive any less after the respondent’s redemption 

than she would receive if she were to obtain a refund pursuant to section 22-50 absent a 

redemption. Id. at 157. 

¶ 23 Here, as in Darco, the respondent could have successfully defended against a tax deed 

petition based on the expiration of the certificate. Then, the petitioner would have been 

entitled to seek a refund under section 22-50, provided that it could show a bona fide attempt 

to comply with the statutory requirements to procure a tax deed. Such a refund would consist 

of “the purchase price and other taxes that were paid and were validly posted to the tax 

judgment, sale redemption and forfeiture record after the tax sale [citation] but no penalty 

interest or costs.” Id. at 156 (citing In re Application of the County Treasurer & ex officio 

Collector, 305 Ill. App. 3d 995, 1000-01 (1999)). The respondent would receive a partial 

refund of the redemption money. Should the petitioner fail to prove a bona fide attempt, the 

petitioner would not be entitled to any refund and the respondent would be entitled to a full 

refund of the redemption money. 

¶ 24 Whether the petitioner made a bona fide attempt is a factual question. In re Application of 

the Kane County Collector, 297 Ill. App. 3d 745, 748 (1998). Because the trial court did not 

make that factual finding in this case, we remand for the trial court to make that 

determination. 
- 8 - 

¶ 25 CONCLUSION 

¶ 26 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Boone County is reversed 

and the cause is remanded for additional proceedings consistent with this decision. 

¶ 27 Reversed and remanded with directions.