First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Chicago Title & Trust Co.
Docket: No. 84—0002
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; April 16, 1987; Illinois; State Appellate Court
Plaintiff First Federal Savings and Loan Association initiated mortgage foreclosure proceedings on property at 240 Fencl Lane, Hillside, Illinois, against defendants including Chicago Title and Trust Company and National Business Credits Corporation. National Business Credits Corporation was the maker of a note secured by the property, with Vincent J. Schreiber as a guarantor who intervened in the proceedings. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of First Federal, prompting Schreiber to appeal.
The appeal raises two primary issues: whether First Federal was required by section 15—201 of the Code of Civil Procedure to produce original documents of the note and mortgage, and whether the affidavits submitted with First Federal's motion complied with Supreme Court Rule 191(a). The defendants admitted the existence of the note and mortgage but claimed insufficient knowledge regarding other allegations. In support of its motion for summary judgment, First Federal provided an affidavit from its general counsel, James Scallon, detailing the mortgage loan's background, the default, and outstanding balances, along with an affidavit from clerk Margaret Brennan stating that the original documents were lost.
Schreiber did not dispute the completeness or accuracy of the copies provided, nor did he contest their authenticity. However, he objected to the summary judgment, arguing that the Code required original documents and that Brennan's affidavit consisted of conclusions rather than factual statements, violating Rule 191(a). The trial court accepted the affidavits and ruled in favor of First Federal, stating that section 15.201 only required copies of the evidence of indebtedness and security, not originals. The court maintained that the affidavit of Brennan did meet the factual requirements set forth in Rule 191(a).
Affidavits must be based on the personal knowledge of the affiant, who must be competent to testify about their contents. In the case of Brennan's affidavit, she confirmed her personal knowledge regarding her employment with First Federal, her review of the relevant file, and her search for the original note and mortgage. According to Section 2.1005 of the Civil Practice Law, a plaintiff may move for summary judgment after the opposing party has appeared or the time for their appearance has expired, with or without supporting affidavits. The opposing party can file counteraffidavits before or during the hearing on the motion. Summary judgment is granted if there are no genuine issues of material fact, allowing the moving party to obtain judgment as a matter of law. The trial court reviewed the pleadings and affidavits, finding no challenge to the authenticity of the attached exhibits, which included the original mortgage and note. As a result, the court properly determined there was no genuine issue of fact and entered summary judgment in favor of First Federal, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's judgment.
