SECOND DIVI SION FIL ED: May 8, 2007
No. 1-06-0517 HOUSEHOLD BANK, FSB, ASSIGNEE OF EQUIF IRST CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. JEWEL LEWIS and PR

OVI NCETO WN IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIAT ION, Defend ants-App ellees, GREENWI CH IN

VESTORS XV

I, L LC, Inte rvenor- Appellan

t. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) AP PE AL FR OM T HE C IRC UIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY

No. 03 CH 14299

HON ORA BLE JESSE G. REYES , JUDGE PRESIDING.
JUSTICE HOFFMA

N deliver ed the opi nion of the

court: Intervenor-a

ppellant, Greenwich I

nvestors XVI, L

LC, (Greenwich), appeals from an order of the circ uit court of Cook County

which va cated th e judicia

l mortga ge for eclosur e sale of cert ain propert y to Greenw ich, the highest bidder. The property had been foreclosed by plaintiff, Househol d

Bank, F SB, afte

r defen dants, Jewel Lewis and Provincetown Improvement Association (mortgagors), defa

ulted on their mortgage. The record shows that on August 27, 2003, plaintiff filed a f oreclos ure comp laint ag ainst mortgagors regarding the single -family reside nce at 123 Williamsburg Road inCountry

Club Hills, Illinois. Neither mort gagor a nswere d the comp laint, and plaintif f moved f

or entry of a def ault judgment agains tthem. The trial court granted plaintiff' s motion on March 17, 2005, and entered
a judgment of foreclosure and sale whic h pr ovided tha t the statu

tory period of redempt ion would expire on June 17, 2005. OnMay 20, 2005, a notice of public sale was filed announcing that the mortgag ed prope rty would be sold to the highest bidder on June 21, 2005. The judgment amount specified therein was $80,720.02, and on the date of the sale, Greenwich bid $48,071.No. 1-06-0517

2

The record r eflec ts that plaintiff filed a motion to approve the sale. The motion was continued on June 29, 2005, to allow mortgagors to attempt to negotiate a short sale. On July 13, 2005, however, plaintiff obtained leave to withdraw its motion to approve the sale over the objection of Greenwich, which had been g ranted leave to intervene. The court a lso granted Addie Glenn Tate, who had purchas ed the pr operty from the m

ortgagors on July

7, 2005, le ave to fi le a petit ion t o intervene. OnAugust

1, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the sale. Greenwich f iled a response, claiming that

plaintiff had fail ed to atta

ch any document s in suppor

t of its allegation that on July 12, 2005, it had ac cepted $ 67,945 fr om the mort

gagors. Gree

nwich fu rther c laimed tha

t this case did notinvolve a

settleme nt, but ra ther, an outrigh t sale of t he prope rty to Addie Glenn Tate on

July 7, 2005, and that a deed had been recor ded on July 19, 2005. OnNovember 2, 2005, the trial court vacated the June 21, 2005, judicial sale, and ordered the selling officer to return the procee ds from that sale to Greenwich. G reenwich sub sequentl

y sought re co ns id er at io n o f t ha t o rd er an d, al te rn at iv el y, request ed damag es aga

inst plaintiff based on the theory of tortious interfe rence with prospective economic advantage. The trial court denied

the motion to recon sider an

d, in this a ppeal, Greenwich contends that the ju dicial foreclosu

re sale should not have been vacated because "once a property

goes to sale, it must be confirmed." We note, initially, that plaintiff appears to a rgue that Green wich has waived this issue on appeal because

it failed to cite pe

rtinent a uthority in support

of its arg

ument (21 0 Ill. 2d R. 341(h)(7)). We find tha

t the issue

was suff iciently raised a nd is not sub

ject t o forfeiture where Greenwich

cited Aurora

Loan Service s, Inc. v. Cra

ddieth , 44 2 F. 3 d 1018 (7th Cir. 2006) , in its opening brief and Mortga ge Ele ctronic

Registr ations Sy stems, Inc. v. Thompson , 368 Ill. App. 3d 1035 (2006), and Washington Mutual Bank, FA v. Bo yd , 369 I ll. App. 3d 526 (2006 ), in its re

ply to plaintiff's arguments. See Lieb v. Judges' Retirement Syst em of I llinois , 314 Ill. App. 3d 87, 96 (2000).No. 1-06-0517

3

We also find that our

review is no t precl uded b y Greenwic h's failure to state the applic able standard of revie w in violat

ion of Supr

eme Co urt Rule 341(h)(3). 210 Ill. 2d R. 341(h)(3). The
s triking of an appellate brief is a harsh sanction and is appr opriate only when the

proc edura l violations interfe

re with or preclude review. Moomaw v. Mentor H/ S, Inc. , 313 Ill. App. 3d 1031, 1035 (200 0). This is

not such a

case, a nd we tur n to the me

rits of the appeal, reviewi

ng the tr ia l court 's decision

to set aside th e judicial sale under the abuse of discretion standard. Northwe st Diversified, Inc. v. De sai , 353 Ill. App. 3d 378, 386 (2004). Inthis state, a judicial foreclosure sale is not complete until it has been approved by the trial court. Washington Mutual Bank, FA , 369 Ill. App. 3d at 1043. Section 15-1508(b) of the Illinois Mortga ge Foreclosure Law (735 I LCS 5/15-1508(b) (West 2004)) provides that the trial court sha ll enter an order

confirming the sale unless it finds that justice was not otherwise done. Washington Mutual Bank, FA , 369 Ill. A pp. 3d at 1 043. Thus, a trial c ourt is justified in refusing to approve a judicial sale if unfa irness is shown that is prejudicial to an interested party

. Washington Mutual Bank, FA , 369 Ill. App. 3d at 1043. We note, however, that section 15-1508(b) does not revive the redemption period se t forth insection 15-1605 (735 IL CS 5/15-1605 (West 2004) (no equitabl e right of rede mption sha

ll exist
or be enforceable after a judicia l foreclosure sale)) once it has expired ( WashingtonMutual Bank, FA , 369 Ill. App. 3d at 1042-43). Inthis case, the statutory

period of redemption expired on June 17, 2005, and the foreclosure sale to Greenwich occurred on June 21, 2005. Defenda nt-mortgagors took no action to exercise the right of rede mption prior to the foreclosu re sale, but sold the property to Addie Glenn T ate in a private sale after the expiration of the statutory redemption period. Sub se quently, the trial court granted plaintiff leave to withdraw its motion to appr ove the jud icial sale over the objection of Greenwich and ultimately vacated the sale.No. 1-06-0517

4

Alth ough we reco gn ize that the judic ial sale y ielded a lower pr ice than the priva te sale to AddieGl enn Tate, this does not change the fact that the priva te sale occurred after the de adline. WashingtonMutual Bank, FA , 369 Ill. App. 3d at 10 44. Acc ordingly, we find that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing

to confirm the judicial foreclosure sale. Washington Mutual Bank, FA , 369 Ill. App. 3d at 1043. Inso finding, we disagree with the dec ision in Mortgage Electronic Reg istrati on Sy stems, Inc. where another division of this court ignored the fa ct that a mortgagor no longe

r has a right of red empti onafter a foreclosure sale, a nd relied on cases where the circumstanc es that led the trial court to refus e to conf

irm the foreclosu

re sale s occurr

ed befor e th e expi ration of the redemption periods, n ot afterwards, as here. Washingto n Mutual Bank , FA , 369 Ill. App. 3d at 1044-4 5

. Becau se we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to confirm the judicial sale, we need not addre ss Green

wich's alterna tive clai m for dama

ges. Ac co rd in gl y, we reverse the judgment of the circuit cour t of Cook County, and remand the
cause with instructions that the circuit court confirm the judicial sale of the property

. Washington Mutual Bank, FA , 369 Ill. App. 3d at 1045. Reversed and remanded. WOLFSON, P.J., and SOUTH, J., concur.