Millennium Bank v. Tilala — appeal dismissed as premature before foreclosure-sale confirmation

Case
Millennium Bank v. Harry Tilala, Ranju H. Tilala, and Niral Tilala
Court
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District
Judge
Justice Wilson; Presiding Justice Mitchell; Justice Mikva
Date Decided
August 28, 2026
Docket No.
1-26-0261
Topics
Mortgage foreclosure; Appellate jurisdiction; Final orders; Rule 304(a)
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Millennium Bank made a $1.507 million SBA-backed commercial loan to Hari Swami LLC. Harry Tilala, Ranju H. Tilala, and Niral Tilala secured obligations associated with that loan by granting Millennium a mortgage on property in Hoffman Estates, Illinois. The mortgage stated that the principal indebtedness secured by the mortgage, excluding protective advances, would not exceed $145,000.

After Hari Swami defaulted, Millennium filed this foreclosure action. On January 9, 2026, the Cook County circuit court entered summary judgment for Millennium, a default judgment against unknown owners and nonrecord claimants, appointed a selling officer, and entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The foreclosure judgment found Millennium was owed $513,871.64 and required a later sale report and confirmation hearing. The Tilalas appealed, arguing that the mortgage capped the secured indebtedness at $145,000.

The Court’s Holding

The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Under Illinois law, a foreclosure judgment is final as to the matters it decides, but ordinarily does not end the foreclosure proceeding because the court must still confirm the sale and resolve matters attendant to confirmation, including distribution, possession, post-judgment costs, and any deficiency judgment.

An appeal may proceed before sale confirmation if the foreclosure judgment includes an express Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) finding that there is no just reason to delay appeal. The January 9 orders contained no such finding. The Tilalas could not create appellate jurisdiction by limiting their challenge to the judgment’s determination of the amount due.

Key Takeaways

  • A judgment of foreclosure and sale generally is not immediately appealable before confirmation of the sale.
  • Rule 304(a) can permit an immediate appeal from a foreclosure judgment, but only through an express written finding.
  • Challenging only the amount found due under a foreclosure judgment does not make an otherwise nonfinal order appealable.

Why It Matters

The decision reinforces Illinois mortgage-foreclosure procedure as a two-stage process. The order confirming the sale—not the foreclosure judgment—ordinarily supplies the final, appealable judgment.

Parties seeking review before confirmation must ensure that the circuit court has entered a proper Rule 304(a) finding. This Rule 23 order is nonprecedential except as permitted by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(e)(1).

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top