Court Opinion

ID: 9899701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-17 16:05:51.886633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:46.514825
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 221078-U

                                                                                 FIFTH DIVISION
                                                                                November 17, 2023

                                            No. 1-22-1078

 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the
 limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
 ______________________________________________________________________________
                                     IN THE
                         APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                 FIRST DISTRICT
 ______________________________________________________________________________
 LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC,                                  )   Appeal from the
                                                                )   Circuit Court of
           Plaintiff-Appellee,                                  )   Cook County.
                                                                )
     v.                                                         )
                                                                )
 MONTRELLE REESE, DB HIL 2014                                   )   No. 17 CH 7205
 TRUST, UNKNOWN OWNERS, and                                     )
 NONRECORD CLAIMANTS,                                           )
                                                                )
           Defendants,                                          )   Honorable
                                                                )   Freddrenna M. Lyle,
 (Montrelle Reese, Defendant-Appellant).                        )   Judge Presiding.

           JUSTICE MIKVA delivered the judgment of the court.
           Presiding Justice Mitchell and Justice Navarro concurred in the judgment.

                                              ORDER

¶1        Held: We affirm the judgment of the circuit court because appellant has failed to furnish
                a sufficient record for this court to determine whether there has been any error.

¶2        Defendant Montrelle Reese appeals pro se from the circuit court’s denial of his May 2022

petition for relief from judgment filed pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure

(Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2022)). On appeal, Mr. Reese contends that the circuit court

erred when it denied the petition and failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Mr. Reese further
No. 1-22-1078

contends that plaintiff Lakeview Loan Servicing (Lakeview Loan) violated certain real estate laws.

Because appellant has failed to provide us with a sufficient record to determine whether there has

been any error in this case, we affirm.

¶3                                         I. BACKGROUND

¶4     The record on appeal does not contain a report of proceedings. The following facts are

gleaned from the common law record, which includes Lakeview Loan’s complaint, filings by the

defense, and the circuit court’s orders.

¶5     On May 19, 2017, Lakeview Loan filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint against

defendants, Mr. Reese, DB HIL 2014 Trust (trust), unknown owners, and nonrecord claimants,

regarding an owner- occupied residence on the 1800 block of Princeton Road in Flossmoor,

Illinois. The complaint alleged that a mortgage was obtained on September 28, 2015, in the amount

of $365,699, and that the monthly installment had not been paid since January 1, 2017. Copies of

mortgage documents, signed by Mr. Reese on September 28, 2015, were attached.

¶6     On July 31, 2017, Lakeview Loan filed motions for an order of default against all

defendants, to dismiss all unknown owners and nonrecord claimants, to appoint a special selling

officer, and to enter a judgment of foreclosure and sale.

¶7     On August 22, 2017, the circuit court entered an order dismissing all unknown owners and

nonrecord claimants. The court also entered an order of default as to Mr. Reese and the trust. In

addition, the court entered a judgment for foreclosure and sale, noting that the redemption period

would expire on December 29, 2017. A sale was scheduled for January 2, 2018.

¶8     On January 12, 2018, Lakeview Loan filed a motion seeking an order approving the report

of sale and distribution and an order of possession in favor of the successful bidder, insurers,

investors, and agents of Lakeview Loan, and against Mr. Reese and the trust.

                                                -2-
No. 1-22-1078

¶9     On January 29, 2018, the circuit court held a hearing on Lakeview Loan’s motion to

approve sale. The circuit court’s order, entered that date, states that “Defendant and his attorney”

appeared and were granted 28 days to file a response to Lakeview Loan’s motion.

¶ 10   On February 26, 2018, Mr. Reese and the trust filed, through counsel, a motion to vacate

the foreclosure sale.

¶ 11   On May 10, 2018, following a hearing, the circuit court entered an order approving the

report of sale and distribution, confirming the sale, and ordering possession against Mr. Reese and

the trust that would take effect in 60 days.

¶ 12   On June 5, 2018, Mr. Reese filed a pro se motion for reconsideration of the circuit court’s

“May 7, 2018 Order.” On July 9, 2018, the circuit court struck the motion without prejudice for

failure to provide courtesy copies and insufficient notice.

¶ 13   Mr. Reese then filed pro se motions for reconsideration on July 24, 2018, and September

13, 2018. On September 26, 2018, the circuit court struck the “motion” from the call. The court’s

order noted that only Lakeview Loan’s counsel was present in court.

¶ 14   On October 1, 2018, Mr. Reese filed another pro se motion for reconsideration, which is

not included in the record on appeal. On October 3, 2018, the court held a hearing on the motion.

Mr. Reese was present. The circuit court entered an order taking the matter off the call due to a

bankruptcy stay, and ordering Mr. Reese to re-notice the motion once the bankruptcy stay was

lifted. The order indicates that Lakeview’s counsel notified the court of “bankruptcy 18-24731”

but does not indicate what entity was involved in the bankruptcy.

¶ 15   On October 31, 2018, Mr. Reese filed a pro se motion for reconsideration. On November

21, 2018, the circuit court struck the motion for lack of jurisdiction. The court’s order noted that

Mr. Reese was not present.

                                                -3-
No. 1-22-1078

¶ 16    Mr. Reese filed another pro se motion for reconsideration on January 16, 2019. On January

24, 2019, the circuit court struck the motion for lack of courtesy copies. Mr. Reese then filed

another pro se motion for reconsideration on January 28, 2019. On February 7, 2019, following a

hearing where Mr. Reese was present, the circuit court struck the motion, without prejudice, for

lack of jurisdiction.

¶ 17    On February 15, 2019, the attorney who filed the February 26, 2018, motion to vacate the

foreclosure sale on behalf of Mr. Reese and the trust filed a petition to withdraw as counsel. On

February 26, 2019, the circuit court permitted counsel to withdraw.

¶ 18    Mr. Reese thereafter obtained new counsel, who filed a motion on March 18, 2019, to

reconsider the circuit court’s order approving the January 2, 2018, sheriff’s sale and to vacate the

sale. On March 21, 2019, the circuit court held a hearing on the motion. Attorneys for both parties

were present. The court struck the motion for lack of jurisdiction because the challenged order was

entered more than 30 days earlier, on May 10, 2018.

¶ 19    On May 21, 2019, Mr. Reese filed, through the same new counsel, a petition to vacate the

May 10, 2018, order pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code, alleging that the circuit court retained

jurisdiction because Lakeview Loan fraudulently concealed facts from the court and Mr. Reese’s

timely pro se motion for reconsideration, filed on June 5, 2018, was never heard on the merits.

¶ 20    On July 31, 2019, Lakeview Loan filed a motion to strike and dismiss the section 2-1401

petition alleging improper service and failure to plead sufficient facts to satisfy the elements of

section 2-1401. In the alternative, Lakeview Loan asserted it was entitled to judgment on the

pleadings when Mr. Reese would “never be able” to establish a meritorious defense to the

foreclosure and because the motion to reconsider would have been denied “as improper.”

Lakeview Loan thereafter filed an amended motion raising the additional argument that the petition

                                               -4-
No. 1-22-1078

was barred by section 15-1509(c) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/15-1509(c) (West 2018)), which states

that “[a]ny vesting of title *** by deed pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 15-1509 *** shall be

an entire bar *** [to] all claims of parties to the foreclosure.” Lakeview Loan noted that the title

to the foreclosed property was recorded on May 24, 2018, and the instant petition was not filed

until May 21, 2019.

¶ 21   On December 2, 2019, the circuit court granted Mr. Reese’s new counsel leave to withdraw

as counsel. Mr. Reese’s third counsel filed an appearance on December 20, 2019.

¶ 22   On February 26, 2020, the circuit court granted Lakeview Loan’s motion to dismiss the

section 2-1401 petition. The court noted in the order that counsel for Lakeview Loan appeared and

that “no one” appeared for Mr. Reese.

¶ 23   On April 26, 2022, a fourth attorney filed an appearance for Mr. Reese. Then, on May 2,

2022, the fourth attorney filed a second petition for relief from judgment seeking an order vacating

the January 2, 2018, sale. The petition alleged that the circuit court had jurisdiction because Mr.

Reese’s prior section 2-1401 petition was “never” adjudicated, Lakeview Loan “fraudulently

concealed the facts” from the circuit court, and the court had an interest in preventing the entry of

an unjust judgment. The petition further alleged that Mr. Reese did not learn until March 1, 2022,

that his third counsel had failed to both file a response to Lakeview Loan’s motion to dismiss the

2019 petition for relief from judgment and attend court on February 26, 2020.

¶ 24   On June 24, 2022, the circuit court held a hearing on the May 2022 petition for relief from

judgment. Mr. Reese, his fourth counsel, and Lakeview Loan’s attorney appeared. Following oral

argument, the court denied the petition because the court “lack[ed] jurisdiction to re-open this

case.” On July 18, 2022, Mr. Reese filed a pro se notice of appeal from the June 24, 2022, order.

                                                -5-
No. 1-22-1078

¶ 25                                     II. JURISDICTION

¶ 26    Lakeview Loan contends that the instant appeal is an untimely appeal of the May 10, 2018,

order confirming the judicial sale and must be dismissed.

¶ 27    Because Mr. Reese challenges the dismissal of a section 2-1401 petition for relief from

judgment, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303 (eff. July 1, 2017), regarding civil appeals governs.

See also People v. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d 1, 8 (2007) (“proceedings under section 2-1401 are subject

to the usual rules of civil practice”). Pursuant to Rule 303, an appeal must be filed within 30 days

of judgment. Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(a)(1) (eff. July 1, 2017).

¶ 28    Here, the circuit court denied the May 2022 section 2-1401 petition on June 24, 2022, and

Mr. Reese filed a pro se notice of appeal from that order on July 18, 2022. Because Mr. Reese

filed the pro se notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of the order appealed from, it was

timely filed. We thus have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule

301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994) and Rule 303 (eff. July 1, 2017), governing appeals from final judgments

entered by the circuit court in civil cases.

¶ 29                                       III. ANALYSIS

¶ 30    On appeal, Mr. Reese first contends, “based on the facts presented” to the circuit court and

the record on appeal, that the circuit court “misapplied” the law when it denied the May 2022

section 2-1401 petition due to lack of jurisdiction. He argues that his third counsel “fraudulently

misled” him into believing the case remained pending during the pandemic.

¶ 31    However, the deficiencies in the record prevent us from reaching this appeal on the merits.

As the appellant, Mr. Reese has the burden to provide a complete record for review in the appellate

court to support his claim of error. Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391 (1984). In the absence

of such a record, “it will be presumed that the order entered by the [circuit] court was in conformity

                                                 -6-
No. 1-22-1078

with law and had a sufficient factual basis.” Id. at 392. This is because, to determine whether there

was an error, a reviewing court must have a record before it to review. Id.

¶ 32   Here, the record reveals that the circuit court denied the May 2022 section 2-1401 petition

on June 24, 2022, following oral argument. However, the record on appeal does not contain a

report of proceedings from the oral argument or acceptable substitute such as a bystander’s report

or agreed statement of facts pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 323(a),

(c), (d) (eff. July 1, 2017). Without a transcript of the oral argument or an acceptable substitute,

we are unable to determine whether any evidence was presented, what the parties argued, or how

the circuit court decided to rule as it did. Under these circumstances, we must presume that the

court acted in conformity with the law and properly denied the May 2022 section 2-1401 petition

based upon the record before it. Corral v. Mervis Industries, Inc., 217 Ill. 2d 144, 156-57 (2005).

In the absence of a report of proceedings or other record of the oral argument, we have no basis

for disturbing the circuit court’s judgment. Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d at 391-92.

¶ 33                                    IV. CONCLUSION

¶ 34   For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

¶ 35   Affirmed.

                                                -7-