Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; June 13, 1994; Illinois; State Appellate Court
Three separate petitions to vacate tax sales as "sales in error" were brought by First Central Corporation under section 260 of the Revenue Act of 1939. The Cook County Treasurer, Edward J. Rosewell, opposed the petitions, asserting that First Central did not file them within one year post-redemption, as required by section 271 of the Act. The trial court denied all petitions, leading to First Central's appeal. Despite the lack of a "Statement of Facts" in First Central's brief, the Collector's "Statement of Facts" and the record support First Central's claims.
In all cases, First Central purchased properties during the 1985 tax sale, with extended redemption periods and tax deed petitions filed, but no redemptions occurred. The relevant timelines for each case are as follows: In case number 1 (92—0187), properties were purchased on December 9, 1986, with a petition filed on June 6, 1989, and a redemption period extended to October 19, 1989. In cases 2 (92—0799) and 3 (92—0800), properties were purchased on February 3, 1987, with petitions filed on October 31, 1988, and redemption periods extended to March 16, 1989. First Central claimed substantial destruction of the properties post-sale, filing for vacating the sales well after the respective redemption periods: case 1 on October 4, 1991; case 2 on May 31, 1991; and case 3 on September 4, 1991.
The Collector objected to First Central's petitions, asserting that they were not filed within the one-year timeframe required by section 271 of the Act after the redemption period expired. Section 271 states that if a certificate holder does not take out a deed and file it within one year post-redemption, the certificate becomes null and void, with no right to reimbursement, unless prevented by court injunction or clerical refusal. The trial courts denied First Central's petitions, ruling the certificates void under section 271. First Central appealed, claiming the courts erred by applying section 271 instead of the five-year statute of limitations from section 13.205 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. The appellate court previously addressed this in In re Petition for Declaration of Sale in Error, ruling that section 271 applies to section 260 cases and that tax purchasers need not acquire a tax deed while pursuing a sale in error. The court emphasized that section 271's one-year requirement must be considered with sections 260 and 271.1, concluding that certificates cannot be redeemed via a sale in error if they are already null and void under section 271. First Central contested this precedent, arguing that both the five-year and one-year statutes cannot apply simultaneously. However, the court clarified that the statutes serve different purposes: section 13.205 is a statute of limitations for filing sales in error petitions, while section 271 governs the validity of the certificates themselves.
The trial courts did not err in denying Dean L. Johnson's petitions, as First Central failed to obtain or file tax deeds within one year after the extended redemption periods expired for each parcel. First Central argued that the case In re Delinquent Taxes for the Year 1985 supports its position regarding the applicability of section 271. However, this case indicated that section 271 applies to petitions for sales in error under section 271.1, while also remanding for consideration of relief under section 260. Justice McCullough, in a separate opinion, questioned the need for remand, suggesting that if relief under section 271.1 was too late, then a sale in error claim would also be too late due to the destruction of buildings. First Central contended that the majority opinion in the 1985 case implicitly rejected McCullough's position, but the remand did not indicate that section 271 does not apply to a section 260 petition. The appellate court did not address the section 260 issue since the circuit court had not ruled on it. First Central also referenced Joliet Stove Works v. Kiep, which involved statutory provisions similar to sections 260 and 271, but the court in that case did not interpret the latter provision. The Joliet Stove Works court suggested in dicta that a five-year statute of limitations would apply, which aligns with the ruling in Dean L. Johnson that the five-year statute applies to sales in error petitions, but section 271 remains relevant to the validity of the certificate and sale. Consequently, the judgment of the Cook County circuit court is affirmed.
