Schaumburg Bank & Tr. Co. v. Bellony Real Est. & Dev., 2015 IL App (3d) 130896-U, ¶ 43. See also Bank of Am., N.A. v. Beeman, 2014 IL App (2d) 140313-U, ¶ 25 (finding that because a bank could rely on loan servicing company's records as either a successor-in-interest or as a successor by merger, a bank officer's affidavit sufficiently established a foundation for admitting loan serving company's business records); FirstMerit Bank, N.A. v. Balin, No. 11 C 8809, 2012 WL 4017948, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2012) (“The record reflects that although Maxwell did not work for Midwest and was not a custodian of Midwest's records, Maxwell would constitute a qualified witness since the records of Midwest became FirstMerit's records as the successor bank.”)

Because the statute does not require that the mortgagor actually receive the notice, had the bank addressed the notice correctly, the Bekta's would be without a defense. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Beeman, 2014 IL App (2d) 140313-U, ¶ 26 ("Section 15-1502.5(c) requires only that the grace period notice be sent.").