Standard Bank & Trust Co. v. Madonia

38 Citing cases

  1. U.S. Bank v. Avdic

    2014 Ill. App. 121759 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 181 times
    Finding the affiant had the requisite personal knowledge to establish the foundation for certain loan documents

    “A foreclosure complaint is deemed sufficient if it contains the statements and requests called for by the form set forth in section 15–1504(a) of the Mortgage Foreclosure Law (735 ILCS 5/15–1504(a) (West 2008)).” Standard Bank & Trust Co. v. Madonia, 2011 IL App (1st) 103516, ¶ 20, 357 Ill.Dec. 755, 964 N.E.2d 118. A foreclosure action may be pursued by “the legal holder of the indebtedness, a pledgee, an agent, or a trustee,” and “[a] plaintiff can maintain a lawsuit although the beneficial ownership of the note is in another person.” Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Barnes, 406 Ill.App.3d 1, 7, 346 Ill.Dec. 118, 940 N.E.2d 118 (2010).

  2. PNC Bank v. Dubak

    2018 Ill. App. 180686 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    Based on the complaint and the attached mortgage and note, NCB complied with section 15-1504(a) and set forth the required information. See Standard Bank and Trust Co. v. Madonia, 2011 IL App (1st) 103516, ¶ 20 (applying the Illinois counterpart to section 215a of the National Banking Act (12 U.S.C. § 215a(e) (2012)). Specifically, the complaint alleged that the capacity in which NCB brought the suit was as "the holder of the Mortgage given as security."

  3. Midfirst Bank v. Riley

    2018 Ill. App. 171986 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 14 times

    This is sufficient to show Washington Mutual could attach the allonge and indorse it in blank. See Standard Bank & Trust Co. v. Madonia , 2011 IL App (1st) 103516, ¶ 20, 357 Ill.Dec. 755, 964 N.E.2d 118. ¶ 28 At the time of summary judgment, plaintiff produced documents demonstrating it had standing to foreclose.

  4. 21st Mortg. Corp. v. Lengerich

    2016 Ill. App. 153179 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    1504(a) (West 2012)). Standard Bank & Trust Co. v. Madonia, 2011 IL App (1st) 103516, ¶ 20. A foreclosure action may be pursued by "the legal holder of the indebtedness, a pledgee, an agent, or a trustee," and "[a] plaintiff can maintain a lawsuit although the beneficial ownership of the note is in another person." Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Barnes, 406 Ill. App. 3d 1, 7 (2010).

  5. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Bednarz

    2016 Ill. App. 152738 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    ¶ 8 Section 15–1504 of the Foreclosure Law provides a form complaint which many plaintiffs employ essentially verbatim. Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. Korzen, 2013 IL App (1st) 130380, ¶ 43, 377 Ill.Dec. 771, 2 N.E.3d 1052 ; see also Standard Bank & Trust Co. v. Madonia, 2011 IL App (1st) 103516, ¶ 20, 357 Ill.Dec. 755, 964 N.E.2d 118 (foreclosure complaint deemed sufficient if it contains the statements and requests called for by the form set forth in section 15–1504(a)). Under subsections (c), (d), and (e) of section 15–1504, if the complaint “is ‘substantially’ in the specified statutory form, the allegations in the complaint ‘are deemed and construed’ to also include 12 more statutorily specified allegations.”

  6. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mundie

    2016 Ill. App. 152931 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    holder of an indebtedness or obligee of a non-monetary obligation secured by a mortgage or any person designated or authorized to act on behalf of such holder and (ii) any person claiming through a mortgagee as successor.” 735 ILCS 5/15–1208 (West 2014). Such a definition is sufficient to set forth a plaintiff's capacity in bringing a foreclosure cause of action under the Foreclosure Law. See HSBC Bank USA, National Ass'n v. Rowe, 2015 IL App (3d) 140553, ¶ 18, 394 Ill.Dec. 321, 36 N.E.3d 254 (concluding that where the plaintiff had alleged its capacity as “ ‘Mortgagee under 735 ILCS 5/15–1208,’ ” its complaint complied with the statutory requirements); US Bank, National Ass'n v. Avdic, 2014 IL App (1st) 121759, ¶¶ 35–37, 381 Ill.Dec. 254, 10 N.E.3d 339 (where the plaintiff plead it was the mortgagee and attached the note and mortgage with a specific endorsement to the plaintiff, the complaint complied with section 15–1504(a) of the Foreclosure Law (735 ILCS 5/15–1504(a) (West 2010)); Standard Bank & Trust Co. v. Madonia, 2011 IL App (1st) 103516, ¶ 20, 357 Ill.Dec. 755, 964 N.E.2d 118 (concluding the plaintiff complied with the statutory form complaint when it pled it was the mortgagee and attached a copy of the mortgage, note, and merger documents to the complaint); Aurora Bank FSB v. Perry, 2015 IL App (3d) 130673, ¶¶ 23–26, 391 Ill.Dec. 528, 30 N.E.3d 1166 (concluding the plaintiff, an assignee, had capacity to bring the foreclosure action where it alleged in the complaint it was the mortgagee and proved its capacity as the holder of the indebtedness by being the barer of the note); Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Barnes, 406 Ill.App.3d 1, 7, 346 Ill.Dec. 118, 940 N.E.2d 118 (2010) (finding the plaintiff had standing to bring the foreclosure action where it alleged it was “the mortgagee” and thus “satisfied the statutory definition of a mortgagee, which goes beyond just note holders to also encompass ‘any person designated or authorized to act on behalf of such holder ” (quoting 735 ILCS 5/15–1208 (West

  7. Draper & Kramer, Inc. v. King

    2014 Ill. App. 132073 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that motion to vacate agreed order, made within 30 days of entry thereof, was governed by more lenient standards of section 2-1301, not more stringent standards of section 2-1401

    Jackson, 384 Ill.App.3d at 549, 323 Ill.Dec. 266, 893 N.E.2d 280. ¶ 26 As a decision whether to grant a motion under section 2–1301 is discretionary (In re Haley D., 2011 IL 110886, ¶ 69, 355 Ill.Dec. 375, 959 N.E.2d 1108), we review a circuit court's ruling on a motion under this section for an abuse of discretion (Standard Bank & Trust Co. v. Madonia, 2011 IL App (1st) 103516, ¶ 8, 357 Ill.Dec. 755, 964 N.E.2d 118). An abuse of discretion occurs when the circuit court “ ‘acts arbitrarily without the employment of conscientious judgment or if its decision exceeds the bounds of reason and ignores principles of law such that substantial prejudice has resulted.’ ” Aurora Loan Services, LLC, v. Kmiecik, 2013 IL App (1st) 121700, ¶ 26, 372 Ill.Dec. 586, 992 N.E.2d 125 (quoting Marren Builders, Inc. v. Lampert, 307 Ill.App.3d 937, 941, 241 Ill.Dec. 256, 719 N.E.2d 117 (1999) ).

  8. PNC Mortg. v. Mikolajczyk

    2013 Ill. App. 122286 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)

    735 ILCS 5/15-1208 (West 2010); see also Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC v. Kroening, 2011 WL 5130357, *5 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2011) (noting the "broad definition of 'mortgagee' under Illinois foreclosure law"). In this case, PNC is the successor to NCB. ¶ 52 In Standard Bank and Trust Company v. Madonia, 2011 IL App (1st) 103516, the original mortgagee bank merged with a second bank, which in turn changed its name and merged with a third bank. The third bank brought a foreclosure against the mortgagors.

  9. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Kmiecik

    2013 Ill. App. 121700 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 81 times
    In Aurora, the court took judicial notice of a finding of an adjudicative fact in a written order in a different case involving the same party.

    However, Vincent involved a petition filed pursuant to section 2–1401 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2–1401 (West 2010)), whereas here defendant filed a motion to vacate under section 2–1301 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2–1301 (West 2010)). We agree with Aurora that we review a trial court's denial of a section 2–1301 motion to vacate for an abuse of discretion. Standard Bank & Trust Co. v. Madonia, 2011 IL App (1st) 103516, ¶ 8, 357 Ill.Dec. 755, 964 N.E.2d 118;Deutsche Bank National v. Burtley, 371 Ill.App.3d 1, 5, 308 Ill.Dec. 510, 861 N.E.2d 1075 (2006). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court “acts arbitrarily without the employment of conscientious judgment or if its decision exceeds the bounds of reason and ignores principles of law such that substantial prejudice has resulted.”

  10. First Pers. Bank v. Manganiello

    2013 Ill. App. 120360 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)

    735 ILCS 5/2-1301(e) (West 2010). The trial court's decision to deny a motion to vacate is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Standard Bank & Trust Co. v. Madonia, 2011 IL App (1st) 103516, ¶ 8. A trial court abuses its discretion "when it acts arbitrarily without the employment of conscientious judgment or if its decision exceeds the bounds of reason and ignores principles of law such that substantial prejudice has resulted."