The trial court found that the value of the property at issue was six times what was bid at the foreclosure sale and that such a disparity in the prices was unconscionable. Moreover, the trial court stated more than one reason for refusing to confirm the sale. The trial court then proceeded to explain what it considered to be unfair tactics based on the evidence that was presented. I Defendants next argue that the trial court erred in ordering the plaintiff to accept redemption from Espinoza. Espinoza responds that appellants do not have standing to challenge this court order.
Standing requires injury to a legally cognizable interest.
A party must assert its own legal rights and interests, rather than base a claim for relief upon the rights of third parties. 241 Ill. App. 269 Ill. App. In our view, Citicorp is instructive. In Citicorp, the appellate court concluded that third-party bidders did not have standing to raise a claim that the trial court was without authority to reinstate the mortgagee s mortgage because the statutory reinstatement period had expired.