DSNews delivers stories, ideas, links, companies, people, events, and videos impacting the mortgage default servicing industry.
Issue link: http://digital.dsnews.com/i/1265324
72 With foreclosure moratoria impacting large portfolios of loans, significant increases in forbearances and other types of loss mitigation efforts combined with court closures, being able to prepare for the future of foreclosure litigation is a challenging yet important task. In doing this analysis from a litigation perspective, there are several areas that practitioners and their clients need to consider as their cases are impacted. Servicers and investors alike must be aware that their ability to file a foreclosure based upon the same default in Illinois is limited to two opportunities (one original and one re-filing) because of the single re-filing rule. On occasion a lender may need to voluntarily dismiss (or "non-suit") a foreclosure action, to "restart it." is could be because a notice of acceleration was deemed non- compliant with the terms of the mortgage, the failure to comply with the HUD "face-to-face" regulation, or any number of other reasons. Before authorizing the voluntary dismissal of the foreclosure action, it is important to consider whether a new foreclosure action will be filed after the dismissal and whether there was a prior cause of action filed upon the same default. e Illinois Supreme Court's decision in First Midwest Bank v. Cobo, 2018 IL 123038 (opinion filed on November 29, 2018), addressed the ability of a lender to file a second, but not third, action relative to enforcement of an unpaid loan. First, the court explained the genesis of Illinois' single re-filing rule, which is derived from Section 13-217 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, which states: the action is voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, or the action is dismissed for want of prosecution, *** the plaintiff, his or her heirs, executors or administrators may commence a new action within one year or within the remaining period of limitation, whichever is greater, after *** the action is voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. 735 ILCS 5/13-217 (West 1994). e Supreme Court stated that this statute was held to permit "one, and only one, refiling of claim," in its prior decision, Flesner v. Youngs Development Co., 145 Ill.2d 252 at 254 (1991). PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF FORECLOSURE LITIGATION A recent court case might re-shape how servicers approach the single- filing foreclosure rule. Quick Take By: Brian Merfeld and Marcos Posada