ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO EXTINGUISH MORTGAGE LIEN DESPITE RUNNING OF 10-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Illinois’ highest court recently affirmed the dismissal of a quiet title action wherein Chicago Title Land Trust Company (“Chicago Title”) sought to extinguish a mortgage lien which had gone unpaid for more than ten years rendering the lien holder unable to foreclose due to the running of the statute of limitationsi. Chi. Title Land Tr. Co. v. Watkin, 2026 IL 132383, ¶1 (Ill. September 24, 2026).
The Court provided a brief history explaining that Marline and Melvin Stein (“the Steins”) executed a one-year note “up to the sum of $150,000” in favor of the trustee of the Watkin 2000 Revocable Trust (“the Trust” ) in 2011.ii The note was secured by a mortgage on real property located in Wilmette, Illinois (“the Property”) which property was held in trust by Chicago Title.iii The Steins failed to make any payments on the note and a day before the expiration of the 10-year statute of limitations the Trust filed a foreclosure action against the Steins which was subsequently dismissed due the Trust’s failure send a pre-suit acceleration notice.iv The Trust did not file a subsequent foreclosure action.
About a year after the dismissal, Chicago Title filed a quiet title action against the Trust seeking declaratory relief and to enjoin the Trust from “asserting any estate, title or interest in the subject property.”v Chicago Title alleged that because neither the note nor the mortgage lien could be enforced due to the running of the 10-year statute of limitationsvi the lien should be declared invalid and unenforceable.vii The Trust moved for summary judgment against Chicago Title on the basis that “the expiration of the statute of limitations period [did] not extinguish the underlying debt.”
The trial court, appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court agreed with the Trust.viii Noting the that the clear and unambiguous language of § 13-116ix expressly provided that “every” mortgage lien terminates 20 years from the date that the last payment was due, the Court concluded the statute of limitations only affected the available remedies for breach of the mortgage, not the “substantive rights” under the mortgage.x
The Court concluded by explaining that quiet title actions were equitable in nature reasoning that “he who seeks equity must do equity.”xi Relying on that maxim, the Court then advised if Chicago Title and the Steins wished to remove the mortgage lien from the Property “before it becomes extinguished by operation of law under section 13-116,” they can satisfy the debt owed to the Trust. Otherwise, the Court noted, “[they] will have to wait.”xii
In a hurry? Click here for the key points.
Illinois’ highest court recently affirmed the dismissal of a quiet title action wherein Chicago Title Land Trust Company (“Chicago Title”) filed a quiet title action against the Watkin 2000 Revocable Trust (“the Trust”) seeking to extinguish a mortgage lien which had gone unpaid for more than ten years rendering the lien holder unable to
foreclose due to the running of the 10-year statute of limitations. Chi. Title Land Tr. Co. v. Watkin, 2026 IL 132383, ¶1 (Ill. September 24, 2026).
Chicago Title filed the quiet title action against the Trust seeking declaratory relief and to enjoin the Trust from “asserting any estate, title or interest in the subject property.” Chicago Title alleged that because neither the note nor the mortgage lien could be enforced due to the running of the 10-year statute of limitations the lien should be declared invalid and unenforceable. The Trust moved for summary judgment arguing that “the expiration of the statute of limitations period [did] not extinguish the underlying debt.”
The trial court, appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court agreed with the Trust. Noting the that the clear and unambiguous language of § 13-116 expressly provided that “every” mortgage lien terminates 20 years from the date that the last payment was due, the Court concluded the statute of limitations only affected the available remedies for breach of the mortgage, not the “substantive rights” under the mortgage.
i The pertinent statute is codified at 735 ILCS 5/13-115 (LexisNexis, Lexis Advance through P.A. 104-30 of the 2025 Regular Session of the 104th General Assembly.). ii Watkin, at ¶¶ 3-4.
iii Watkin, at ¶¶ 3-4.
iv Watkin, at ¶5. Future references to this case are this citation unless indicated otherwise. v Watkin, at ¶6.
vi The 10-year statute of limitations pertaining to foreclosure actions is codified at 735 ILCS 5/13-115 and the 10-year statute of limitations pertaining to enforcement of a note is codified at 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/13-206 (LexisNexis, Lexis Advance through P.A. 104- 471 of the 2025 Regular Session of the 104th General Assembly).
vii Watkin, at ¶6.
viii Watkin, at ¶¶ 7-8, 24.
ix This statute is codified at 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/13-116 (LexisNexis, Lexis Advance through P.A. 104-30 of the 2025 Regular Session of the 104th General Assembly.) x Watkin, at ¶¶ 15, 21.
xi Watkin, at ¶23.
xii Watkin, at ¶24. Future references to this case are this citation unless indicated otherwise.
`
Headquarters:
499 NW 70th Avenue, Suite 309
Plantation, FL 33317
Main: 954-564-0071
Fax: 954-564-9252
