ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT REJECTS BORROWERS’ CHALLENGES TO STANDING & AFFIRMS FORECLOSURE JUDGMENT AND SALE

Illinois’ Fourth District Appellate Court recently affirmed a foreclosure judgment entered in favor of US Bank on summary judgment and confirmed the subsequent foreclosure sale finding the borrowers’ (John and Nancy Stachewicz) challenges to both to be meritless. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Stachewicz, 2025 IL App (4th) 241504-U, ¶ 1.

In 2007 the borrowers took out a mortgage on real property located in Lacon, Illinois. 1 The borrowers stopped making payments in 2013 and US Bank filed a foreclosure complaint in 2022. 2 US Bank attached a copy of the blankly endorsed note to its complaint. The borrowers filed both an answer and affirmative defenses as well as a motion to dismiss challenging US Bank’s standing. 3 The court struck the defenses and denied the motion to dismiss so the borrowers filed a counterclaim again challenging US Bank’s standing. 4

US Bank moved for summary judgment on its foreclosure complaint and the borrowers’ counterclaims. 5 In response, the borrowers again moved to dismiss the complaint and filed various documents including a “purported” letter sent to the borrowers by Rushmore Loan Services, LLC (“Rushmore letter”) in 2023 which indicated Rushmore “possessed the note” which was the subject of the foreclosure action. 6 Although the letter was attached to an affidavit, US Bank argued it was unauthenticated hearsay. 7 The borrowers did not challenge the amounts due or their payment default.

During the summary judgment proceedings the borrowers argued that they received correspondence in 2017 which indicated their loan had been sold to Rushmore. US Bank objected to that testimony on hearsay grounds and the court sustained the objection. The court also found all of the documents the borrowers filed to be unauthenticated and inadmissible hearsay and the motion to dismiss to be untimely since the borrowers had previously filed an answer.

The court entered a judgment of foreclosure, and the property was noticed for a sheriff’s sale. 8 The same day as the sale the borrowers filed an objection to the sale, but it still proceeded as scheduled. Shortly thereafter, US Bank moved to approve the sale. The borrowers obtained counsel and filed a second objection to the sale raising multiple procedural and statutory deficiencies with the foreclosure and sale process and again challenged US Bank’s standing. The trial court entered an order confirming the sale and evicting the borrowers. The borrowers appealed the summary judgment of foreclosure and the order confirming the sale to the Fourth District. 9

The Fourth District affirmed in all respects first explaining that US Bank’s standing, the only substantive issue defendants raised, derived from US Bank’s holder status which the borrowers failed to refute with admissible and authenticated evidence. 10 The Court elaborated that the Rushmore letter was clearly hearsay and, in addition to failing to lay a proper foundation for admission of the letter, the borrowers also failed to demonstrate the letter fell under an exception to the hearsay rule. 11

Similarly, the Court rejected the borrowers’ procedural challenges to the sale explaining the judgment language complied with all pertinent rules and statutory requirements. 12 In response to complaints that the foreclosure judgment was not received by one of the borrowers, the Court noted that “Section 15-1506 of the Foreclosure Law” only required a borrower be given notice of the sale and “a foreclosure entered by default.” 13 Since the borrower previously acknowledged receipt of the sale notice, and the foreclosure judgment was not entered by default the pertinent foreclosure rules were satisfied. 

Lastly, the Court rejected the borrowers’ arguments that the foreclosure judgment was deficient because it did not include a “special right of redemption.” 14 The Court noted the judgment included the ending date of the redemption period which was all that was required under section 15-1506 or section 15-1604 of the foreclosure law. 15 Given the evidence US Bank presented in this case and lack of substantive rebuttal from the borrowers, the Fourth DCA’s ruling is no surprise but it is a welcome result.

1 Stachewicz, at ¶3.

2 Stachewicz, at ¶4.

3 Stachewicz, at ¶5.

4 Stachewicz, at ¶6.

5 Stachewicz, at ¶7.

6 Stachewicz, at ¶7-8.

7 Stachewicz, at ¶8-9. Future references to this case are to this citation until indicated otherwise.

8 Stachewicz, at ¶12. Future references to this case are to this citation until indicated otherwise.

9 Stachewicz, at ¶16.

10 Stachewicz, at ¶23, 26. 11 Stachewicz, at ¶26, 27. 12 Stachewicz, at ¶36. 13 Stachewicz, at ¶41, 43.

14 Stachewicz, at ¶45, 46.

15 Stachewicz, at ¶48.

---

`

Headquarters:

499 NW 70th Avenue, Suite 309 

Plantation, FL 33317

Main: 954-564-0071

Fax: 954-564-9252