{
  "id": 5210203,
  "name": "CITY NATIONAL BANK OF MURPHYSBORO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT E. VANCLOOSTERE et al., Defendants-Appellants (Roy Dean Bigham et al., Foreclosure Sale Purchasers-Appellees; Loretta Jane Schneider et al., Defendants)",
  "name_abbreviation": "City National Bank of Murphysboro v. Vancloostere",
  "decision_date": "1992-07-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 5\u201490\u20140668",
  "first_page": "723",
  "last_page": "725",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "230 Ill. App. 3d 723"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "377 N.E.2d 161",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "166"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 Ill. App. 3d 1008",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3355107
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1013"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/60/1008-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "537 N.E.2d 956",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "958"
        },
        {
          "page": "958"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 3d 70",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2621343
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "73"
        },
        {
          "page": "73"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/182/0070-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 315,
    "char_count": 5175,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.8,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.436057418262789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.27809883896705945
    },
    "sha256": "01b8bfe55274a4909c9537ae5dc547790ced471df9498c0e14b59d105ab86e5d",
    "simhash": "1:ffba40efe8ce0ce3",
    "word_count": 855
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:33.012273+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CITY NATIONAL BANK OF MURPHYSBORO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT E. VANCLOOSTERE et al., Defendants-Appellants (Roy Dean Bigham et al., Foreclosure Sale Purchasers-Appellees; Loretta Jane Schneider et al., Defendants)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE HARRISON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, the City National Bank of Murphysboro (the Bank), brought an action in the circuit court of Jackson County pursuant to the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 15 \u2014 1101 et seq.) to foreclose on two mortgages it had issued to defendants, Robert E. and Willa Maxine Vancloostere. The Bank\u2019s amended foreclosure complaint was filed July 26, 1989. On November 17, 1989, the circuit court entered its judgment of foreclosure. In that judgment, the circuit court specified that the redemption period, which it found to be governed by section 15 \u2014 1603(b)(1) of the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 15\u2014 1603(b)(1)), would expire on February 17, 1990, and that if no redemption occurred within that time, the property was to be sold on March 13, 1990. After making a number of other findings to comport with the requirements of the foreclosure statute, the circuit court made an express written finding pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (134 Ill. 2d R. 304(a)) that there was no just reason for delaying enforcement or appeal.\nDefendants did not appeal, nor did they seek to redeem the property. They did attempt to have the foreclosure sale adjourned on the grounds that plaintiffs had not complied with certain statutory notice requirements, but that motion was denied, and the sale took place as scheduled on March 13, 1990. An order confirming that sale was entered by the circuit court on March 27, 1990. Within 30 days, defendants filed a motion to have the order confirming the sale set aside \u201con the grounds that the terms of the sale were not fair and that justice was not done by the sale.\u201d At the hearing on that motion, defendants argued, among other things, that the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 15 \u2014 1101 et seq.) was unconstitutional because, as applied in this case, it had the effect of retroactively shortening the redemption period. The circuit court rejected this argument on the grounds that it had not been timely raised, and the motion to vacate the order confirming the sale was denied. Defendants now appeal.\nAs grounds for their appeal, defendants argue that the circuit court\u2019s use of the redemption period specified in section 15 \u2014 1603(b) of the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 15 \u2014 1603(b)), which was in effect when the foreclosure complaint was filed, rather than the redemption period specified under the predecessor statute, which was in effect when the mortgages were executed, \u201cunconstitutionally impaired] their contractual rights in violation of the contract clause of the federal constitution [U.S. Const., art. I, \u00a710].\u201d Although this argument has been ably argued by defendants\u2019 counsel, we are constrained to conclude that it is not properly before us for review.\nThe redemption period was set by the circuit court\u2019s November 17, 1989, judgment of foreclosure and sale. That judgment expressly indicated that the redemption period was based on section 15 \u2014 1603(b) of the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 15 \u2014 1603(b)), not by the period set forth in the predecessor to that statute. As we have indicated, the circuit court\u2019s judgment contained the express \"written finding required by Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (134 Ill. 2d R. 304(a)), and there is no question that a judgment of foreclosure and sale which contains such a finding is a final and appealable order. (Jo Jan Corp. v. Brent (1989), 182 Ill. App. 3d 70, 73, 537 N.E.2d 956, 958.) Accordingly, if defendants believed that the use of section 15 \u2014 1603(b) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 15 \u2014 1603(b)) was improper, that was when the issue should have been raised. Yet, defendants did not file a notice of appeal from that judgment within the time provided by Supreme Court Rule 303 (134 Ill. 2d R. 303). They filed no notice of appeal until now.\nUnder these circumstances, defendants are foreclosed from directly attacking the circuit court\u2019s determination regarding the applicable redemption period. (See Jo Jan Corp. v. Brent, 182 Ill. App. 3d at 73, 537 N.E.2d at 958.) Their appeal as to that issue is not timely, and we have no jurisdiction to hear it. (Sabath v. Mansfield (1978), 60 Ill. App. 3d 1008, 1013, 377 N.E.2d 161, 166.) Because defendants have advanced no cognizable basis for a collateral attack on the circuit court\u2019s ruling, their appeal must therefore be dismissed.\nAppeal dismissed.\nW. LEWIS and RARICK, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE HARRISON"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Douglas Antonik and M. Keith Smith, both of Mt. Vernon, for appellants.",
      "Edward J. Heller, of Reed, Heller & Mansfield, of Murphysboro, for appellee City National Bank of Murphysboro.",
      "Donald Bigham, of Hohlt, House, DeMoss & Johnson, of Pinckneyville, for appellees Roy Dean Bigham and Orville Bigham."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CITY NATIONAL BANK OF MURPHYSBORO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT E. VANCLOOSTERE et al., Defendants-Appellants (Roy Dean Bigham et al., Foreclosure Sale Purchasers-Appellees; Loretta Jane Schneider et al., Defendants).\nFifth District\nNo. 5\u201490\u20140668\nOpinion filed July 9,1992.\nDouglas Antonik and M. Keith Smith, both of Mt. Vernon, for appellants.\nEdward J. Heller, of Reed, Heller & Mansfield, of Murphysboro, for appellee City National Bank of Murphysboro.\nDonald Bigham, of Hohlt, House, DeMoss & Johnson, of Pinckneyville, for appellees Roy Dean Bigham and Orville Bigham."
  },
  "file_name": "0723-01",
  "first_page_order": 743,
  "last_page_order": 745
}