ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT AFFIRMS ORDER DENYING HEIR’S POST-JUDGMENT REQUEST TO INTERVENE IN FORECLOSURE ACTION

Stacia Peterson
34 minutes ago
2 min read

Illinois’ Fifth District rejected an heir’s tardy request to intervene in a foreclosure action and challenge a default judgment entered against the heir’s mother, Karen Askew (“Askew”), in favor of US Bank. U.S. Bank Nat'l Tr. Ass'n v. Askew, 2025 IL App (5th) 250021-U, ¶ 2. US Bank obtained a default final judgment of foreclosure (“Judgment”) against Askew in August 2016. 1

Askew passed away in February 2022. 2 Later that same year substituted plaintiff, FV-1, Inc., successfully moved to amend the final judgment to reflect payments received on Askew’s behalf as the result of bankruptcy proceedings Askew filed several years after entry of the Judgment. 3 Thereafter, US Bank substituted back into the case and the clerk conducted a foreclosure sale on March 8, 2023.

More than a year after the court confirmed the foreclosure sale, Askew’s daughter, Jasmine Andrews (“Andrews”), moved to intervene in the foreclosure case asserting she was a necessary party to the action because she was living at the property when her mother died. 4 The trial court disagreed concluding Andrews had no cognizable interest in the property prior to or after entry of the Judgment in 2016 and denied Andrews’ petition to intervene. Andrews appealed that finding and lost. 5

On appeal the Fifth District explained that Andrews’ petition to intervene was untimely under rule 15-1501(e) 6 and because Andrews failed to claim an interest in the sale proceeds the trial court lacked jurisdiction to allow intervention post-judgment and post-sale. 7 The Court rejected Andrews’ arguments that the later amendments to the Judgment (to substitute the party Plaintiff and to account for payments received during the bankruptcy proceedings) were improper without a “special representative” being appointed for her deceased mother. 8

The Court found Andrews failed to rebut US Bank’s argument that the amendments to the Judgment “did not alter plaintiff’s right to the property.” 9 Similarly, the Court concluded that Andrews failed to assert any right to redeem the property or receive sale proceeds and she failed to adequately raise or support her arguments pertaining to lack of notice, lack of standing and violations of due process. 10 The Court affirmed the lower tribunal order in all respects.

1 Askew, at ¶4.

2 Askew, at ¶9.

3 Askew, at ¶7.

4 Askew, at ¶9.

5 Askew, at ¶10.

6 Codified at 735 ILCS5/15-1501(d).

7 Askew, at ¶16.

8 Askew, at ¶18.

9 Askew, at ¶21.

10 Askew, at ¶¶20-22, 24-26