CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Moran

28 Citing cases

  1. Purgatory Cellars, LLC v. Neighbors

    2024 Ill. App. 5th 230154 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024)

    ¶ 42 We review the court's decision to enter a default order for an abuse of discretion or a denial of substantial justice. CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Moran, 2014 IL App (1st) 132430, ¶ 22. However, the question of whether the defendants' motion to dismiss constituted a timely appearance is a question of law; it is therefore subj ect to de novo review.

  2. Emerald Lake Invs., LLC v. Dee

    2017 Ill. App. 152763 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    In CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Moran, we found that default judgment was appropriate where defendant failed to file a motion to vacate the default judgment approximately eight months after plaintiff filed its first motion for an order of default. CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Moran, 2014 IL App (1st) 132430, ¶ 45. This court has found similar delays were sufficient grounds for demonstrating lack of due diligence.

  3. Smith v. Davis

    2022 Ill. App. 4th 200440 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)

    ¶ 30" '[W]hether to grant or deny a motion [for default] under section 2-1301[(730 ILCS 5/2-1301 (West 2010))] is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion or a denial of substantial justice.'" CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Moran, 2014 IL App (1st) 132430, ¶ 23, 29 N.E.3d 50 (quoting Jackson v. Bailey, 384 Ill.App.3d 546, 548, 893 N.E.2d 280, 283 (2008)). An abuse of discretion occurs when" 'the ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or when no reasonable person would take the same view.'" CitiMortgage, 2014 IL App (1st) 132430, ¶ 24 (quoting Bovay v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2013 IL App (1st) 120789, ¶ 26, 994 N.E.2d 665).

  4. Ditech Fin. v. Sellers

    2019 Ill. App. 4th 190119 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    " Deutsche Bank, 2016 IL App (1st) 152656, ¶ 34. Also, "lllinois law allows servicers and agents to be foreclosure plaintiffs on behalf of the actual mortgage holder." Citimortgage, Inc. v. Moran, 2014 IL App (1st) 132430, ¶ 41, 29 N.E.3d 50. Moreover, "[t]he attachment of a copy of the note to a foreclosure complaint is prima facie evidence that the plaintiff owns the note.

  5. WCNSB, L.L.C. v. Vaishnav Dhabha, Inc.

    2019 Ill. App. 19 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    ¶ 25 Moreover, while Dhaba here makes numerous arguments about what transpired at the May 9, 2019, hearing, it fails to provide us with any transcript whatsoever form that date or, for that matter, any acceptable substitute such as a bystanders report, or an agreed statement of facts, as authorized under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323 (Ill. S. Ct. R. 323 (eff. Dec. 13, 2005)), from which we could review its contentions.¶ 26 Our supreme court has long recognized that to support a claim of error, the appellant has the burden to present a sufficiently complete record on appeal. Corral v. Mervis Industries, Inc., 217 Ill. 2d 144, 156 (2005); Webster v. Hartman, 195 Ill. 2d 426, 432 (2001); Foutch v. O'Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-92 (1984); see also CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Moran, 2014 IL App (1st) 132430, ¶ 38; People v. Universal Public Transportation, Inc., 2012 IL App (1st) 073303-B, ¶ 50) ("[I]t is neither the function nor the obligation of the Appellate Court to act as an advocate or search the record for error."). Without an adequate record preserving the claimed error, a reviewing court must presume the circuit court's order had a sufficient factual basis and that it conforms with the law.

  6. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y v. Roney

    2023 Ill. App. 220695 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    We note that a loan servicer can be a separate entity from the mortgage holder. See CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Moran, 2014 IL App (1st) 132430, ¶ 41 (recognizing that Illinois law allows the loan servicer to be the foreclosure plaintiff on behalf of the lender or actual mortgage holder). Thus, defendants failed to demonstrate that IndyMac was the holder of the note and mortgage after EverBank.

  7. CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Smith

    2018 Ill. App. 170387 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    The final appealable order in a foreclosure is the confirmation of sale, which we review for abuse of discretion. SeeCitiMortgage, Inc., v. Morgan, 2014 IL App (1st) 132430, ¶ 22. Smith also can challenge the order of default (id.) and discovery sanctions on appeal. United Excavating & Wrecking, Inc. v. J. L. Wroan & Sons, Inc., 43 Ill. App. 3d 101, 104 (1976). We review sanctions for abuse of discretion (id.), and we review entering an order of default for an abuse of discretion or denial of substantial justice.

  8. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Mar

    2017 Ill. App. 161296 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Moran, 2014 IL App (1st) 132430, ¶ 24. ¶ 15 Section 2-616(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure states that, "[a]t any time before final judgment amendments may be allowed on just and reasonable terms." 735 ILCS 5/2-616(a) (West 2012).

  9. U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Kosterman

    39 N.E.3d 245 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 17 times
    In Kosterman, the trial court struck the defendants' affirmative defense of lack of standing, holding that lack of standing was not an affirmative defense.

    The entry of an order confirming the sale is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Moran, 2014 IL App (1st) 132430, ¶ 25, 390 Ill.Dec. 421, 29 N.E.3d 50. Section 15–1508(b) of the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law provides: “Unless the court finds that (i) a notice required in accordance with subsection (c) of Section 15–1507 was not given, (ii) the terms of sale were unconscionable, (iii) the sale was conducted fraudulently, or (iv) justice was otherwise not done, the court shall then enter an order confirming the sale.”

  10. Maguire v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, N.A.

    Case No. 13-cv-6874 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 6, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    To the extent Maguire brings this action in part to prevent some remote prospect of a foreclosure action (which could be brought by the current note holder or the next), even if sufficiently pled a quiet title claim is not the appropriate mechanism to gain the relief she seeks. See CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Moran, 29 N.E.3d 50, 57-58 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015) (plaintiff in foreclosure action not required to submit any specific documentation demonstrating that it owns the note or the right to foreclose on the mortgage, other than the copy of the mortgage and note attached to the complaint; the party holding the note is presumed to own it). Because she has had several opportunities to properly plead her claim, the Court will not allow further amendment.