Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; July 11, 1975; Illinois; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made from a circuit court order for the issuance of a tax deed to the petitioner. Respondents Rosa Lee Bulk and Clarence Roberts, Jr. challenged the compliance with notice requirements of the Revenue Act regarding parties including Roberts and trustee Thomas O. Peters, Jr. Additionally, they contended the petitioner did not meet the back taxes payment obligations. The property in question, owned by Mrs. Bulls since 1947, was sold for unpaid 1969 taxes to Interstate Bond Company in 1971. Interstate conducted a back tax search and paid the taxes found due. After the redemption period expired in November 1971 without redemption, Interstate transferred its Certificate of Purchase to the petitioner, who later applied for a tax deed, claiming all legal notices were served. An affidavit confirmed service to Mrs. Bulls and attempted service to Peters, who was reportedly unlocatable. Mrs. Bulls filed a motion to dismiss, citing notice failures and outstanding taxes from prior years. During hearings, Mrs. Bulls testified she lived in the property with Roberts, who is her cousin, not her son, and that he does not pay rent separately. Further testimonies clarified how back taxes were discovered and addressed. The court heard evidence regarding the service of notice to Mrs. Bulls and the payment of back taxes.
Upon entering the house through the kitchen, the individual conversed with Mrs. Bulls about a notice and inquired about other occupants of the apartment, to which she identified her son, Roberts, and his family as relatives. On August 10, 1973, he served notice to Thomas O. Peters by leaving it with his secretary, Odell Bach, and also sent a copy via certified mail. He served Mrs. Scott, the occupant of the second-floor apartment, later that same day. During cross-examination, he stated that he determined who needed to be served, indicating he believed Mrs. Scott was single without confirming her marital status. He did not serve Roberts, despite his presence during visits, and admitted he had not engaged with Roberts directly. Mrs. Bulls testified that Roberts had lived there since the 1960s, initially paying rent, but later sharing expenses, and noted there was no formal lease. Laighton Scott, a witness, denied receiving any notice regarding his rental of the second floor. Clarence Roberts, Jr. also claimed he had not received notice and recounted his living arrangement with Mrs. Bulls. The court ultimately ordered the issuance of a tax deed, finding all statutory notices had been provided. The respondents argued that Roberts was not properly served, contending the court erred in issuing the deed, while the petitioner maintained that Roberts and Mrs. Bulls presented themselves as family, suggesting service to Roberts was unnecessary. The relevant statutes in question were sections 263 and 266 of the Revenue Act.
A purchaser or assignee must provide notice of a sale and the expiration of the redemption period to owners, occupants, and interested parties at least 3 months and no more than 5 months before the redemption period ends. This notice should be served personally or at the usual abode of individuals and also sent via registered or certified mail. Section 266 mandates strict compliance with these notice requirements. The court found that the necessary notices had been properly given, and this ruling stands unless clearly against the evidence's weight. The term "occupants" is not statutorily defined, so courts refer to its common meaning, which includes individuals who have actual use or possession of property. In relevant case law, it was determined that service to occupants does not necessitate personal service on minors living with parents if notice is given to the parents. In this case, evidence indicated that Roberts was an occupant but was not served, despite the process server being aware of his presence. The server chose not to serve him, even though there was uncontradicted evidence that Roberts had previously paid rent and had an agreement regarding bill payments with another occupant.
Roberts is considered an occupant despite being referred to as a son, based on criteria established in Gage v. Lyons, which includes being the head of the family, paying rent, and continuous residence. The court concluded that these factors, along with other circumstances, confirm Clarence Roberts, Jr. as an occupant entitled to service. The issue of service was significant since the case involved a direct appeal regarding a tax deed, and the lack of service on Roberts was contested by both Mrs. Bulls and Roberts, making her personal service irrelevant. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. Judges Lorenz and Sullivan concurred.
