Opinion
No. 1-18-1162 No. 1-18-1751 Consolidated
04-19-2019
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-HE1, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LELAND WHITE, III, AKA LELAND A. WHITE, III; TRACY WHITE; WORLDWIDE ASSET PURCHASING, LLC, as assignee of Atlantic Credit Financial, LLC; MEADWOS CREDIT UNION; CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation; MIDLAND FUNDING NCC-2 CORPORATION; FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation; UNKNOWN OWNERS AND NON-RECORD CLAIMANTS, Defendants (Leland White, III, Defendant-Appellant).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 14 CH 16256 Honorable Daniel P. Brennan, Judge Presiding. JUSTICE CUNNINGHAM delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Connors and Harris concurred in the judgment.
SUMMARY ORDER
¶ 1 The plaintiff-appellee, U.S. Bank National Association (the Bank), initiated a foreclosure action against the pro se defendant-appellant, Leland White, III (White), in the circuit court of 2 Cook County. White now appeals the circuit court's orders: (1) denying White's motion to dismiss the Bank's complaint; (2) striking White's affirmative defenses; and (3) granting summary judgment in favor of the Bank. ¶ 2 In October 2006, White executed a promissory note secured by a mortgage on a property located at 6 Country Club Drive, Olympia Fields, Illinois. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for People's Choice Home Loan, Inc. was the mortgagee. ¶ 3 On October 8, 2014, the Bank filed a foreclosure complaint against White. The mortgage, note, and assignment were attached to the complaint. The note was signed by White and was endorsed in blank. ¶ 4 White filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2014)), alleging that the Bank lacked standing. He attached a copy of the note that had been filed in connection with a 2009 foreclosure action by a different bank. That copy of the note was unendorsed. White argued, inter alia, that the Bank lacked standing because it did not "possess a legally endorsed note." A few days after filing his motion to dismiss, White answered the Bank's complaint and asserted several affirmative defenses, including lack of standing. ¶ 5 The Bank responded to White's motion to dismiss and his affirmative defenses by arguing, inter alia, that it had standing because it was in possession of the note, endorsed in blank. 3 ¶ 6 Following a hearing on White's motion to dismiss, the court denied the motion. There is no transcript from the hearing in the record on appeal. ¶ 7 Following a separate hearing on White's affirmative defenses, the court struck the affirmative defenses without prejudice, and allowed White to re-plead them. There is no transcript from that hearing in the record on appeal. White then filed amended affirmative defenses, again alleging that the Bank lacked standing. He attached two of his own affidavits, in which he denied ever signing the note attached to the Bank's complaint. White also re-filed his motion to dismiss, again arguing that the Bank lacked standing. ¶ 8 The court held a hearing on the re-filed motion to dismiss. White argued that the Bank did not possess the original note, and that its complaint attached a forged copy of the note. The trial court stated that "just saying broadly or generally and vaguely that there's a forgery is not sufficient for a [2-619 dismissal]." The trial court then denied White's re-filed motion to dismiss. ¶ 9 The Bank subsequently moved to strike White's affirmative defense of lack of standing. During a hearing on that motion, the court inspected the note attached to the Bank's complaint and determined that it had original signatures and had not been forged. The court determined that the Bank had possession of the note, endorsed in blank, and struck White's affirmative defense of lack of standing. There is no transcript from that hearing in the record on appeal. ¶ 10 The Bank moved for summary judgment on its claim for foreclosure and sale, arguing that there was no issue of fact as to whether White was in default on the loan. White responded only by challenging standing and repeating his prior arguments. ¶ 11 Following a hearing on the Bank's motion for summary judgment, the trial court told White: 4 "[Y]ou have done not much more than just denying it and making conclusory statements that it's a forgery ***. [The Bank] came into court with a note endorsed in blank and presented [it] in court, and asked me to make a finding that it was the note endorsed in blank. *** And as far as I could tell, it looks like [the Bank] possessed the original note endorsed in blank. *** So [it is] entitled to enforce it." The trial court found no genuine issue of material fact existed, and accordingly entered summary judgment in favor of the Bank on its claim for foreclosure and sale. ¶ 12 The judicial sale was then held and the Bank moved to confirm the sale. White did not respond. On May 16, 2018, the trial court entered an order confirming the judicial sale. White then filed a notice of appeal. ¶ 13 A few days after filing his notice of appeal, White filed a motion to withdraw his appeal in the trial court. The trial court granted his motion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 309 (eff. July 1, 2017). White then filed a motion to vacate the May 16, 2018 order confirming the sale. The trial court granted White's motion, vacated the May 16, 2018 order, and allowed White the opportunity to file a substantive response to the Bank's motion to confirm the sale. White then filed a response, again only arguing that the Bank lacked standing. ¶ 14 On August 1, 2018, the court conducted another hearing on the Bank's motion to confirm the sale. The trial court noted that White's response simply repeated his prior arguments regarding standing, which the court had already rejected. The court then entered an order 5 confirming the sale. White subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal. ¶ 15 On appeal, White challenges: (1) the trial court's order denying his motion to dismiss; (2) the trial court's order striking his affirmative defenses; and (3) the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Bank on its foreclosure and sale claim. Although White frames his arguments as several different issues for this court to review, his arguments challenging all three orders amount to the same issue: whether the Bank had standing to bring its foreclosure action against him. ¶ 16 We note that White failed to include in the record on appeal, the transcripts from most of the hearings in this case. The appellant has the burden to present a sufficiently complete record. Foutch v. O'Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-92 (1984). And in the absence of a complete record, it is presumed that the trial court acted in conformity with the law and that the findings were based on the evidence presented. Watkins v. Office of State Appellate Defender, 2012 IL App (1st) 111756, ¶ 19. ¶ 17 In any case, there is nothing in the record which has been provided to this court to refute the Bank's standing. The Bank attached to its complaint the note, endorsed in blank. See Rogers, 6 2016 IL App (2d) 150712, ¶ 30 (in a foreclosure action, attaching the note to the complaint is prima facie evidence that the plaintiff owns the note). And it is well established that possession of a note, endorsed in blank, is sufficient to establish standing in a foreclosure action absent a contrary showing. U.S. Bank Trust Notational Ass'n for Queen's Park Oval Asset Holding Trust v. Hernandez, 2017 IL App (2d) 160850, ¶ 18. ¶ 18 Thus, it was White's burden to rebut the Bank's prima facie showing of standing. See Rogers, 2016 IL App (2d) 150712, ¶ 30 (the defendant has the burden of proving the plaintiff's lack of standing). White never presented any evidence of forgery or anything else by which to challenge the Bank's standing. He merely repeated his same conclusory statement that the Bank did not possess the original note. He continued to do so even after the trial court inspected the note in open court and found it to be the original note, endorsed in blank. The only proof White offered was his own self-serving affidavits, which were insufficient to rebut the Bank's prima facie showing of standing. ¶ 19 In sum, the Bank possessed the note, endorsed in blank, and therefore had standing to bring this foreclosure action against White. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County. This order is entered in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 23(c)(2) (eff. April 1, 2018). ¶ 20 Affirmed.