Background
Wheeler Financial, Inc. held a Certificate of Purchase for unpaid 2015 real estate taxes on a residential property at 3742 North Nora Avenue in Chicago. Wheeler filed a petition for tax deed against the property owner, James T. Leyden. The required published notice appeared in the Chicago Tribune on December 19, 20, and 23, 2019, stating the hearing would be “in the Circuit Court of this county in the Richard J. Daley Center, 50 W. Washington St, IL 60602 on 4/22/2020 at 9:30 a.m. in room 1704.” The notice also indicated redemption could be made by applying to the county clerk “in …, Illinois,” leaving the municipality blank. Leyden was personally served at the property on December 18, 2019.
On November 16, 2021, the circuit court entered an order directing the county clerk to issue a tax deed to Wheeler. On December 15, 2021, Leyden filed a motion to vacate under section 2-1203, arguing the published notice failed to strictly comply with the Property Tax Code because it omitted the municipality from both the hearing-location address and the county clerk’s office location. On January 20, 2023, Leyden moved for summary judgment on the notice defect.
On June 22, 2023, the circuit court granted Leyden’s motion for summary judgment, finding that while Wheeler’s notice included the six items listed in section 22-20, it failed to strictly comply with the Property Tax Code by omitting the municipality in two places and the county in one place. The court vacated the November 16, 2021 order directing issuance of the tax deed. Wheeler appealed, arguing the published notice complied with section 22-20 and that DG Enterprises, LLC-Will Tax, LLC v. Cornelius supported its position.
The Court’s Holding
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the circuit court’s vacation of the tax deed order, holding that Wheeler failed to strictly comply with the Property Tax Code’s notice requirements. The court emphasized that in tax deed proceedings, which may result in forced loss of real property, strict compliance—not substantial compliance—is mandatory. Section 22-10 requires the notice to state the address, room number, and time of hearing in counties with 3,000,000 or more inhabitants (Cook County qualifies). Section 22-15 directs the tax purchaser to give the notice required by section 22-10 through publication as set forth in section 22-20. Reading these provisions together, the published notice must comply with section 22-10’s hearing-location requirement.
Wheeler’s notice omitted the municipality from the hearing-location address by stating only “the Richard J. Daley Center, 50 W. Washington St, IL 60602” without including “Chicago.” The notice also left blank the municipality in the county clerk’s office location. The court found these omissions violated the strict compliance mandate. The court rejected Wheeler’s argument that section 22-20 does not require publication to include all items in the section 22-10 form, noting that section 22-15 links the two provisions and reading section 22-20 narrowly would render section 22-15 meaningless.
The court distinguished DG Enterprises, which involved a collateral attack and the omission of the county clerk’s address and phone number—items not required by section 22-10. Here, the defect involved an incomplete hearing-location address—information section 22-10 expressly requires. The court stated that DG Enterprises did not hold that a tax purchaser in Cook County may publish an incomplete hearing-location address or satisfy the strict compliance mandate through a notice leaving required location information incomplete. Because the notice defect was dispositive, the court did not address Wheeler’s remaining arguments concerning diligence in identifying and serving interested parties.
Key Takeaways
- Tax deed purchasers must strictly comply with all statutory notice requirements in the Property Tax Code; substantial compliance is insufficient.
- In Cook County, published notice in a tax deed proceeding must include the complete hearing-location address, including the municipality, room number, and time.
- Omission of the municipality from the hearing-location address violates strict compliance requirements, even if the property owner was personally served.
- DG Enterprises does not permit tax purchasers to omit required location information from published notice in direct attacks under section 2-1203.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that tax deed proceedings demand strict adherence to statutory notice requirements. Because tax deeds result in forced loss of real property, courts will not excuse notice defects through a substantial-compliance standard. Property owners can challenge tax deeds through direct motions under section 2-1203 even after being personally served, if the published notice contains material omissions. The ruling clarifies that DG Enterprises does not provide a blanket exception for incomplete address information and limits that decision to its specific factual context involving omitted contact information.
Tax purchasers seeking to foreclose through tax deed proceedings must carefully ensure that all location information mandated by section 22-10 for the relevant county is completely and accurately included in published notice, including the municipality. Failure to do so risks having the tax deed vacated and the purchaser’s security interest eliminated, requiring redemption of the property by the owner or interested parties.