Court Opinion

ID: 9710047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:00:41.418991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:53.863881
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE RAKOWSKI, dissenting: Defendants’ position on appeal is that the secured party’s balance due exceeded the actual amount due pursuant to the FDIC letter. The difference amounted to $9,139.77. Plaintiff’s brief does not dispute this fact. Rather, it argues that the FDIC letter was “unauthenticated” and therefore it was proper for the trial court to enter judgment in accordance with plaintiff’s affidavit. Given the majority position that the FDIC letter was properly before the trial court, it becomes clear that a material issue of fact was present to preclude the entry of summary judgment. The majority affirms entry of summary judgment which confirmed the report of sale and distribution because defendants failed to object to the improper demand prior to sale and instead waited until the confirmation hearing to raise the issue. The majority opinion finds support for this position in section 9 — 507(1) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 26, par. 9—507(1)). The statute, however, does not mandate action be taken prior to the sale. Rather, it states “[i]f it is established that the secured party is not proceeding in accordance with the provision of this Part disposition may be ordered or restrained on appropriate terms and conditions.” (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 26, par. 9—507(1). The majority further suggests that the defendants have misdirected their arguments and have a remedy by way of an action to recover any surplus. Again I must disagree. The order granting summary judgment confirmed the report of sale and distribution which reflects sale proceeds of $69,993.18, total disbursements of $71,993.18 and a resulting deficiency in the amount of $2,000. Insomuch as the secured party’s amount due was disputed, litigated and decided by the trial judge, any attempt to relitigate the same issues would be barred by the doctrine of res judicata. I respectfully submit that the majority attempts to confirm the sale as being “commercially reasonable” but does not confirm that part of the report of sale and distribution reflecting receipts, disbursements and a $2,000 deficiency. As a result of the foregoing reasons, I would reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment and remand the cause to the circuit court for further proceedings.