Preview:

ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS
Appellate Court

OneWest Bank, FSB v. Markowicz, 2012 IL App (1st) 111187

Appellate Court Caption

ONEWEST BANK, FSB, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOZENA MARKOWICZ and IRENEUSZ MARKOWICZ, Defendants-Appellants.

District & No.

First District, First Division Docket No. 1-11-1187 March 5, 2012 April 11, 2012 April 16, 2012 The trial court's orders denying defendants' motion to quash service and confirming the foreclosure sale of defendants' real property were affirmed, notwithstanding defendants' contentions that the general administrative order under which service was obtained, including the provision for the appointment of a special process server in such actions, was void and that service by publication was improperly authorized, since the presiding judge of the chancery division had authority to issue the order pursuant to the chief judge's authority under Supreme Court Rule 21(c), the order did not conflict with section 2-201 or 2-202 of the Code of Civil Procedure or the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 101(a) or 102(a), the argument that the order was invalid because it was not easily accessible was rejected, the standing order for the appointment of a special process server sufficiently complied with the general administrative order, and the affidavit for service by publication complied with the requirements of section 2-206(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Rule 23 Order filed Rule 23 Order withdrawn Opinion filed Held
(Note: This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.)

Decision Under Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 09-CH-22579; the Hon. David B. Atkins, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Counsel on Appeal

Affirmed. Stephen D. Richek, of Chicago, for appellants. Goldberg Kohn, Ltd., of Chicago (David J. Chizewer and Deborah Rzasnicki Hogan, of counsel), for appellee.

Panel

JUSTICE KARNEZIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Hall and Rochford concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

Download 1111187.pdf

Illinois Law