notice of filing opposition brief 11-12-10 master

8/7/2019 Notice of Filing Opposition Brief 11-12-10 Master

1/8

MARK WlLK

PlaiaSiff

TO: Mr. Thomas TarQgliaAttorney at Law7819 W. L a . ue,NO-EE ti@?%

You are hereby notified thatNLMZK W L X . -Plaintiff

Name

A true and correct eopg oP he same is attached here40 and semeb m p i on .

on he l2 dayof NOVEM3EB

Date November 12 2010 -

Atty. No.: w31JV

Attorney (or proso! -etitionar)

Name: ~ ~ A R K ~ K the signed person certifies that the statements~ d - 337 E. N m N. set forth in herein are h e nd correct.ciQ/Bte/ap: 'WKEELING, IL. 60090-4525

Tklephone: 630-202-1798


2/8

FN THE CHCUKZ' OURT OF C-4308 COUMTY, ILLINOISC O W m- CHAN-Y DIVfSION

Mark Wilk>

Plain- )1

VS. 1 10 CH 23086)

Thaddeus W i i ;il >

m a t s ). 1

the reasons and argutments set forth herein, the Motion to Dismiss should be denied.

fNTBODUCTlON AN D BACKGROUND OF THE W E

1. On June 1,2010 a m e f &on to Quite T i 4 br Other aeIfefwas fit&. Alleging

that the mnveppdce md the p r p d eed to is void or invalid. And

that the plaintiff has possessory in-& to the resid&&d property.

2. The Chancery Division has subject ma&z jmkdktkn to tdiudiE;ite Quiet T i e and

plaintifPs possessory nterest c k o he ratdentid reat estate- A csuse of ction for a

void or i n d d of c a n b e m x k a t a q h e .


3/8

4. The recording of a deed or ics deIivety for recording does nof of itself comtimte delivery.

Delioery must be nmde dmmg $ie p t o r 3 s i f e xcmse a grantor cannot dispose of

his or her property by deeds ncrt d&vered in his w her H I a&a v. h h , 09 Ell.

556 ( 1951 )- And when a deed is not delivered before &e p t 0 8 s d d ~ , o act of the

grantee &r the p t d s eath can cmtpfete the t r m s s & m and make the delivery

effective. Bt&im.v. ~AS&Y& 11511LL5pp. 76(2dD&. 1904). affd,213IL625, (1905).

5. Plaintiff has standing zts he also &&S possesmq in- to h e property and has been

living there for more than IQ yeas. Thzt &om 3999 &NU November 27,2004 was tak.mg

care of his disabled mother as she was unable to take caze of herse3fafrer the death of his

father during M q of 1999-

6. Successive summons an d copies of the c o m p k t were placed for s&ce and were

returned not semed.

7. On August 19, ;301@ order was entend For &e appointment of a specid process server-

Betty Wilk was served && &e a h ummcmls 4 py og the cumpb t on August 21,

2010 and Barbara W& was served with alias sumxms nd copy of he compiaint on

September 01,2010.

8. Thaddeus was not s t m e d d h the samaxms nd CQ nmde & v h t a r y

appearance by h;s attorney & h u t the service ofpucess on Augtrst 12,20~00 nd on

September @&2010 secdon 2625 d o n o dismiss was filed by his attorney.

9. Defendads voluntary in the action s M e equivalent to service of process.


4/8

The UblitedStaes Supreme C o u d t d O i f S Z ~ M i n & ~ ~ k, 04 U.S. 519,

( 1972 ), a pro se CO "however imr&Ey p]leaded,= must be heki to "?ess sttingent

standards than f o d feadings ckd3.d by heyas'' and can only be dismissed for &.&re to state a

claim if it appears " ' b e p d t h a t & p & t i f f m n ~ 1 ~ ~ e 1 ~ . o ~ e f 0 E ~ i n ~ p a o h i s b

which would entitle him to relief."

. -

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ U E l f E S S i ~ a p p e a r s ~ ~ d o

plaintiff a n rove no set of k t s in support of his &&X d-&% ould en* him to relief? CO~@ .

Gibsm, 355 US. 41,45-46 ( 1957 ).

ultimately prevail but whether th e ciait-Piant is entitled to offer evictence ta support the claims.I

Indeed it ma y appear on the fk x of&e p3- * iei3ovesp is very remote a d ly butthat is not the test Moreo~er, t is d &Bed that, in pitssitngon a motion to disrmss, whether

on the ground of lacB ofjm&&cdon over he subject matter or f3ure to stare a cause of action, the

U.S. 232,236 ( 1974).

Defendant on Skpteznbs 03,2030 M a d ; z r r t a motion to dismks under 735 ILCS

5/2-615 ("Section 2-615")

.o the mt is n was exhibit % " which is a COPY of the


5/8

In ruling on a Seaion 2-615 motion iu dismissy aB weH-pleaded f$cts n the complaint are

taken as true and the zre interpreted in the ight m o s t f a ~ o d i k o the non-moving

N.E.2d 1022 (1st Dist 1982) (purpsse o f a 2-615 m h n is to point out the defects so that the

in his motion to d i s k n vlolaticm of section 2-635 (b).


6/8

The diffkreme is that a deed which is void ab &ih never passed good &&z here, it would

App. 3d 72 (2003). So, oo, is a deed mhich is produced through k d n the x t u m :

Fraudin&ehkbeen&&s&$induf&thatarises&af>artysigns a docmraeat- & f& h w f e d g ; e - of the character or essential tamsof he document. lk4kLasrn zz Z.a&g, 8% f .M %, 5 0 0 2 @& Ck), &. I ~ ~ & d s u bnom. Ever Viaa [email protected] Sm &&Fed Bank, EXB, 111 SCt. 423 (1990)- This kmd offiaud arguably precludes appktion of thc D'Omc6 doctrine because it renders theundedying agee t~e r r t oid. FDIC Gar@, 928 F a 558, 1565 (13th Cir.1993). ncontrast, fraud in the i n d t d ot h;rve dre same &feet because t wouldrender the instrument m e d y void&1e, md thus mpabk of m f e r . d. (cia'ng Lm$gv. FDIC, 4% US - 85,9344 @987>].

therefore, D e h & is not entided to

Illinois, record notice imputes o a pzrtFfiaserknowledge that d e +xed horn an &tion

and county c o w ecords for the county in d i c h the lam? is situated" t z E&, 59 B-R 646,650

(l3ankr. N D . Ill. 1986).

deed was April 19,1999. Fin- therm~re~ e k n c b ~ d d mmw or hould kxmw a subsequent

possessmy interest claim was filed against the properiy.

5


7/8

However, there is a second Bind ofco~smcdve otttre, whi& like the other forms of

is called inquiry f a o h

Inquiry notice is the knowIe+ the law imputes to a purdxser of red propertyw h e n a d q o f k g t r k g . a r i s e s . X n g u i r B n A c e ~ & f ~ & t a d i l ' p t~ q u t f p W O U l d I r m b z ~ t ~ ~ t A 9 i & s t , 383 in. 238,44 N.E,2d 850(1942). f a physical inspecdon of dze property reveal an &erse interest, then

inquiry. Id at 244,4# N.E-Zd at &ere is a m i n xsxs&m other thanthe vendor, the purch;tser has a rnquire of &at party as to his tenure an dinterest in &e premisesenJses 16,245 N.E.2d 539(1 969). The prospective f f i at areinconsistent with tke ctaim of o-1;p by the m r d wner- Td at 23,245 N.E.2da t 544.

grantor is in pssession, m kp.Gq of* pmq in possea;sicw ufthe pm&ses "as go his tenure and

interest: in the premises." &mzx Odd Ca v. F&4 Y06 BlApp126 26,245 N E 2 539 (1969). This


8/8

notice of filing opposition brief 11-12-10 master

Documents