1661 N. Milwaukee Ave, Chicago IL 60647

In the case of MB Financial Bank Vs. Robert Farnik, extensive litigation resulted in the receiver appointment. In 2013 the Plaintiff moved to authorize the Receiver to market and sell the real estate. The motion was contested by one of the defendants, arguing that the court did not have the authority to grant the Receiver authority to sell the real estate. The court ruled that the Plaintiff met its burden and appointed the Receiver.

Case Details:

  • 1661 N Milwaukee Ave, Chicago IL 60647
  • Foreclosure Case No 02 CH 7645
  • Reference:  735 ILCS 5/15-1704(c) (West 2014)

Once the Receiver was appointed the court took up the separate motion to market and sell the real estate. The defendants objected and argued that the property is “unique” and should not be sold. The court denied that objection ruling that courts enter orders disposing of real property all the time whether through eminent domain, marital dissolution or foreclosure.

The Process

The defendants also argued that granting the Receiver authority to sell and market the real estate was premature because no judgment had been entered, and since both sides did not agree to the sale; authority should be denied. The defendants alleged legitimate defenses to the foreclosure and felt that the property should not be sold.

The defendants finally argued that there was a pending motion to discharge the Receiver, and that motion needed to be ruled on prior to authority being given to the Receiver. The court found the motion to discharge the Receiver had no merits and did not have good cause to remove the Receiver. The court having heard all arguments, ruled that it was in the best interests of the estate to authorize the Receiver to market and sell the property.

The defendants filed an interlocutory appeal. The Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s decision, and the Receiver did market the real estate. ( Full Appellate Court order below ) The property was finally sold over the objections of the defendants to a third party purchaser on December 28, 2017 after 11.5 years in receivership and almost 15 years of litigation.

0 Comments

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?