Illinois Supreme Court

The Illinois Supreme Court announced Monday the applicable dates for new rules aimed at mitigating abuses and uncertainty in mortgage foreclosures, and helping those who face the loss of their homes by imposing several requirements on mediation programs and lenders seeking to foreclosure.

The rules were announced February 22, and their effective date is May 1.

However, under amendments filed on Monday Supreme Court Rule 114, which requires a lender to attest that the lender has complied with the requirements of any applicable loss mitigation program, will apply to all judgments on or after the May 1 effective date of the rule no matter the foreclosure filing date.

"Because the affidavit (required under Rule 114) must be filed prior to the entry of a foreclosure judgement, the effective date requires application to any case where a judgment of foreclosure has not yet been entered," state amended comments to Rule 114. "Thus, although a case may already have been filed prior to the effective date (May 1) of Rule 114, the Rule would apply if a judgment of foreclosure has not yet been entered."

Supreme Court Rule 113, which establishes practices and procedures in mortgage foreclosure cases, was amended to make clear that it applies only to those foreclosure actions filed on or after the effective date of May 1, 2013.

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil case In re Estate of Boyar and the criminal cases People v. Fitzpatrick, People v. Le Mirage, Inc. and People v. Hunter.

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Friday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Ferguson v. Patton, Julie Q. v. the Department of Children and Family Services and DeHart v. DeHart and the criminal cases People v. Cruz and People v. Donelson.

CIVIL

DeHart v. DeHart

By Michael T. Reagan, Law Offices of Michael T. Reagan, Ottawa

For more than 50 years plaintiff believed his decedent father’s representation that the decedent was plaintiff’s biological father. Plaintiff found to the contrary when he obtained a certified copy of his birth certificate to obtain a passport, which revealed who his biological father was. That man had abandoned the plaintiff when he was two, and had no further contact. Decedent married plaintiff’s mother, and for more than 60 years held plaintiff out to everyone as his biological son. 

Plaintiff’s mother died in April 2001. In 2005, decedent, then 83, married defendant, 29 years his junior. Three hundred sixty-four days later, decedent executed a new will in which he stated “I have no children.” A prior will provided bequests for plaintiff and plaintiff’s children. 

Legal suspense builds throughout this Opinion as the court methodically works through the six counts of the complaint which had been dismissed by the circuit court, knowing that what lies at the end will be the court’s treatment of the theories for “contract for adoption” and “equitable adoption.” The appellate court, which had reversed the circuit court’s dismissal of all counts, was affirmed in the entirety. 

The Illinois Supreme Court has delayed the effective date of new rules aimed at mitigating uncertainty in the foreclosure process.

The Supreme Court is delaying the effective date to give additional time to the Special Committee which drafted the rules to determine how the rules would be applied to cases currently pending, or if they would apply only to new cases.

New Supreme Court Rule 113 and new Supreme Court Rule 114 initially were to go into effect on Friday March 1. In an Order filed Thursday, the Supreme Court delayed the effective date to May 1.