Introduction.
This is an Appeal from a Summary Judgment Order of foreclosure and Sale in direct derogation of current remedial legislation designed by the Illinois Legislature to abrogate Financial Elder Abuse of vulnerable citizens such as the elderly vulnerable defendants herein, i.e. Dean Sallas (age 85) and Amelia Sallas (approx. age 80) who were married for more than ½ a century.
This particular appeal is unique in that.”
1. The complaint C 24 filed herein, and the record in general appears to be devoid of any averment of any assignment of the security agreement sought to be foreclosed to the initial plaintiff Byline Bank.
2. That the Guardian appointed for Mrs. Sallas is reported in the record to have fiduciary breached his relationship toward Mrs. Sallas in that he did not raise as a defense the Financial Elder Abuse protective statutes and in particular to this foreclosure proceeding, did not raise the fact the 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 voids any attempt by the holder of an agreement signed by such a person as Mrs. Sallas to foreclosure or otherwise collect on an obligation evidenced by a document signed in violation of the said section 22.
3. That as part of the Motion for Summary Judgment C 485 , the plaintiff presents a Petition presented by the Guardian in case 07 P 5360, entitled in Re: Amelia Sallas C 371 wherein the Guardian for Mrs. Sallas appears to make some serious omission of fact and law. In particular, knowing that 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 as violated by Byline Bank on January 25, 2018 the Guardian makes no mention of said fact. Instead the Guardian requests the Court for permission to enter into the very wrongful and ultra vires contract voided Section 22 and most importantly - a criminal offense for Byline Bank to enter into. (It is respectfully submitted that this action by the Guardian, appearing to be represented by the Byline Bank as attornment to the crime by the Court invokes the Himmel case and 18 USCA 4 reporting to law enforcement requirements.
4. That without a scintilla of proof as to either the Standing of the plaintiff to pursue this foreclosure, or mesne debts appearing to have been long abandoned by 3rd persons, the plaintiff was not only allowed to have such stranger debts added to the judgment, but to do so by a Summary Judgment entered prior to the defendant Sallas having an opportunity to take discovery, or file defenses and counterclaims to the instant foreclosure complaint objected to.
5. That without any indication that the plaintiff made any disclosures required by Federal and States law C 27, the balance due as of the date of the alleged default was set $152,607.00, but the judgment for more than $200,000 in excess. Note: The initial principal balance due when Mr. and Mrs. Signed the loan documents to be $173, 366 (C67) dated January 25, 2018.[1] .
Notwithstanding a continuing objection as to the standing of the Byline Bank to bring this foreclosure action herein, this commercial loan document was signed by both Mr. and Mrs. Sallas on January 25, 2018. And the said agreement appears of record as exhibit H attached to the complaint filed herein (C24) Stripped to its primary issue and concern, this appeal raises the pressing issue of whether or not the Chancery (Equity) Division of the trial court attorns to and countenances the Financial Elder Abuse clearly barred by its own rules, 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22, and 720 ILCS 5/17 - 56.
The casual deceptions of the Byline Bank et al herein, not only as to the initial service of process on Dean Sallas (C201 ), the Petition of February 15, 2018 (C371 ), amounts due and owing C636, omission of assignment by Plaza Bank to Byline Bank , affidavit of Attorney fees C 727, casual characterization of predatory mortgage as a legitimate loan arrangement rather rank FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE of the most predatory nature, cannot be tolerated. The commercial loan aside the efficacy of the Judicial system required pursuant to Article 1 Section 12 of the Illinois Constitution is challenged by disrespect for integrity, decency, and honor by the decisions in this case and the EVICTION from his home of Dean Sallas. Allowing such predation as renders Sallas homeless and vulnerable and denies him his human and vested civil rights.
Table of Authorities
1. Statutes:
a. 755 ILCS 5/11a - 20
b. 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56
c.
2. Cases
a. In re: Neprozatis
b. In re: Himmel
c. Wambaugh vs. Parsons.
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR APPEAL.
The instant appeal is distinguishable from most appeals that are brought to this Court as the Appellant, Dean Sallas, is not only pro se, but elderly (age 85) l Mr. Sallas’ wife (and codefendant) has become a victim of a predatory guardianship, wrongful isolation, and worse. Sallas’ Constitutional Rights have been overtly and repeatedly violated, and it is respectfully suggested that Mrs. Sallas’ Court appointed Guardian in these proceedings abdicated the responsibility he claims. (see Petition of Feb 15, 2018 (c ) See also Wambaugh vs. Parson .
Pursuant to the criteria of the Himmel decision, the clear words of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and the statute that provides for appointing a guardian, i.e. 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3, this Court is placed on notice that the plenary Guardian’s appointment and assignment are severely limited solely to the property vested solely of Mrs. Sallas but not to any property of Mr. Sallas, including but not limited to his interest in the marital property of the parties. The Guardian is not appointed to be the alter-ego of Mrs. Sallas and his appointment gives him no jurisdiction concerning either Appellant Dean Sallas or Sallas’ property interests. In fact the Guardian’s “power” is severely limited to acts specifically granted in the statute of those only to the extent that said ‘powers’ are 1) reasonable, 2) necessary and 3 benefit the individual who is designated his ward.
That said, the Guardian is a fiduciary and he owes to Mrs. Sallas the highest brand of fidelity, integrity, and honesty possible. 755 ILCS 5/11a- 3 and the 1st, 4th,5th, and 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution further embellish define and limit the guardian’s responsibility. In a similar manner, this Court is placed upon notice that the affidavits submitted to the Court by the Attorney’s for the Byline Bank praying for a reimbursement of attorney fees for their client are patently absurd – and this Court on the record substantially reduced the claim for attorney fees.
The Appellant respectfully suggests that he at 85 years of age, and his wife at years of age are classic victims of Financial Elder Abuse perpetrated in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
Issue 1. Do statutory and common law protections against abusive and predatory lending practices have meaning in Foreclosure of Mortgage proceedings.
Issue 2. What are the criteria for the entry of Summary Judgment. In particular can Summary Judgment be entered while there is pending a Motion to Dismiss filed by plaintiff and prior to the defendant being given an opportunity to do discovery, file counterclaims or defenses to the pleadings of the plaintiff.
Issue 3. Does the Court in a home mortgage foreclosure have to protect senior citizens from clear abuse by lenders. In simple terms do the hallowed principles of Equity and Justice apply.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
That essential parties to this case are:
1) Appellant, Dean Sallas. He is the spouse of Amelia Sallas for more than ½ a century. Mr. and Mrs. Sallas are the homeowners of the property subject to the Byline Bank foreclosure action herein.
2) Mrs. Amelia Sallas In the related cases of In re: Amelia Sallas 07 P 5360 the Circuit Court of Cook County on******* entered an order finding the Amelia Sallas as a disabled person and in need of a Guardian of her person and her property. Both Mr. and Mrs. Sallas resided in the “property” under foreclosure until approximately ( C ) .
3) Byline Bank (and is claimed assignees). The plaintiff herein. (NB. Without evidence being submitted the appellant of a proper assignment of the collateral from the initial lender to the Byline Bank, defendant does not concede the Byline Bank has standing to bring this foreclosure).
4) The Cook County Public Guardian. Mr. Golbert was appointed plenary guardian for Mrs. Sallas after a series of mesne transactions and appointments.
On January 25, 2018 the Byline Bank, being fully aware of the prohibitions of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 in derogation of the statutory prohibition demanded and obtained the signature of both Mr. Dean Sallas, and Mrs. Amelia Sallas on a Commercial loan document connoting that the signatories owed the Byline Bank the sum of $$173, 366dollars and was required to repay to the Byline Bank that sum at the rate of dollars per month at an interest rate of %. This loan was secured by the borrower’s home. (C 67) This document is the basic document upon which this collection action is based. A prior security agreement in favor of a stranger to these proceedings is sought to be foreclosed.
On January 25, 2018, all parties knew that amongst the Illinois Statutes was 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22. In words and phrases section 22 states:
(755 ILCS 5/11a-22) (from Ch. 110 1/2, par. 11a-22)
Sec. 11a-22. Trade and contracts with a person with a disability.
(a) Anyone who by trading with, bartering, gaming or any other device, wrongfully possesses himself of any property of a person known to be a person with a disability commits a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Every note, bill, bond or other contract by any person for whom a plenary guardian has been appointed or who is adjudged to be unable to so contract is void as against that person and his estate, but a person making a contract with the person so adjudged is bound thereby.
(Source: P.A. 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)
On February 15, 2018 it appears of record in the plaintiff/appellee’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and in case 07 P 5360 (C 371) that the Cook County Guardian (the plenary guardian appointed to protect Amy Sallas) appeared before Judge Boliker by petition dated said date to seek to authorization execute commercial loan documents noted supra and appearing as exhibit H attached to the complaint. Dishonestly, the Guardian’s petition to the Court and presentation did not disclose that on January 25, 2018, the Byline Bank had in direct violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 had obtained the signature of his ward. Mrs. Amy Sallas, the wife of the Appellant. [N.B The Guardian, having a duty of disclosure to the Court, and a fiduciary duty to Mrs. Sallas, did not inform the Court that the actions of the Byline Bank were a serious violation of the law prohibited by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 and the Financial Elder Abuse Statutes. The Petition submitted in words and phrases asked for permission for Guardian to sign the Byline Bank papers. (c371)]
Subsequently, by a series of mesne transactions the Guardian removed from the marital funds of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas approximately $40,000.00 and according to the Summary Judgement documents (c 377 )paid the same over to the Byline Bank apparently reducing the balance due to about approximately $153,000.
The Byline Bank on or about filed this foreclosure suit on or about . On or about a Motion to Quash to false return of summons on Dean Sallas was filed, C . and granted on C .[2] On Dean Sallas filed a MOTION TO DISMISS C .on raising the issues of unclean hands, and pointing out the irregularities in this proceeding. This Motion was denied on .C .
The Counter to the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was a Motion for Summary Judgment.C . Even though prior to the ability of the defendant to take discovery, asset defenses, answer the complaint, the trial court on . in the Amount of total sum of dollars granted the motion and ordered the foreclosure sale of the subject real estate.C . This Summary Judgment order accepted affidavits from the Byline Bank that were in conflict with the actions and or demeanor of the Byline Bank and in the case of the claim for attorneys overtly absurd. (NB. The full claim for attorney fees of approximately $41,000.00 was rejected by the court but $ of attorney fees was granted for the proceeding not out of the discovery stage.C , C )
On or about , the Byline Bank successfully petitioned to the trial court for leave to the Court for the Court to recognize an assignment of interest to and the change the name of the case eliminating the Byline Bank from the title C .. Sallas protested that such would bar him from asserting any counterclaimsC or affirmative defenses he might have against the Byline Bank. The Court on entered an order that in words and phrases C stated:
A judicial sale was held on , the sum $ was bid, This sale was confirmed on , and on C the defendant Dean Sallas filed his notice of Appeal.
N.B. At all-time relevant the title to the subject real estate is vested (though a land trust arrangement) as the marital property of both Amelia Sallas and Dean Sallas. A search of case 07 P 5360 does not indicate that at any time the Guardian appointed for Mrs. Sallas (Amelia)or any other person or entity was granted a quit claim deed or other conveyance of Mrs. Sallas marital interest in her home. [3]
ARGUMENT
The appellant Dean Sallas (age 85) is pro-se and apologizes in advance as to his lack of legal skills and any deficiencies in his presentation or brief.
APPELLANT & HIS SPOUSE AS SENIOR CITIZENS, WHO HAVE BEEN MARRIED FOR MORE THAN ½ A CENTURY, AND WHO ARE BOTH AGED 80 PLUS ARE ENTITLED TO NOT ONLY THEIR 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION RIGHTS, BUT THE REMEDIAL PROTECTIONS AFFORED THE TO VULNERABLE SENIOR CITIZENS. AND THE APPLICATION OF THE HISTORICAL PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY
Illinois in Article 1 Section 12 of its CONSTITUTION of 1970 states:
SECTION 12. RIGHT TO REMEDY AND JUSTICE
Every person shall find a certain remedy in the laws for
all injuries and wrongs which he receives to his person,
privacy, property or reputation. He shall obtain justice by
law, freely, completely, and promptly.
A foreclosure action, such as the instant action is an Equity/Chancery action and addresses the issues to the conscience of the sovereign and thus requires parties seeking relief to not only do equity, but to come to the Court with ‘clean hands.’
The Appellee (Byline Bank) demonstrates a callous disregard for these principles in the ‘key document’ required by this foreclosure – the loan document. This loan document was executed by the Byline Bank and Amelia Sallas in direct violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 which in clearly obviates the right to a Foreclosure. The statute stating.
(755 ILCS 5/11a-22) (from Ch. 110 1/2, par. 11a-22)
Sec. 11a-22. Trade and contracts with a person with a disability.
(a) Anyone who by trading with, bartering, gaming or any other device, wrongfully possesses himself of any property of a person known to be a person with a disability commits a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Every note, bill, bond or other contract by any person for whom a plenary guardian has been appointed or who is adjudged to be unable to so contract is void as against that person and his estate, but a person making a contract with the person so adjudged is bound thereby.
(Source: P.A. 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)
The total record herein including but not limited thereto the MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT clearly indicates that Mrs. Sallas, a necessary party to any foreclosure action concerning her home, was adjudicated a disabled person, and a Guardian was appointed to protect her personal interests. A clear criminal violation of section 22 occurred on January 25, 2018 that cannot be swept under the rug, or buried with a multitude of copies of documents such as filed herein by the Byline Bank.
The record is devoid of any mitigating circumstances that might obviate the enforcement of State and Federal financial elder abuse legislative protections or justify the Circuit Court in ignoring its own heritage and core principles.
Indeed, the case of In re: Neprozatis , makes it very clear that in Illinois Equity Courts if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, has feathers like a duck it is indeed a duck. Indeed, 720 ILCS 5/17- 56 similarly decrees that entities that have the ability to subject an individual to Financial Elder Abuse are not under Illinois law free to use the facilities of Illinois Courts to do so. That statute renders such persons not only subject to triple damages and attorney’s fees, but the burden of proof is reduced from clear and convincing to preponderance of the evidence.
The case Wambaugh vs. Parsons , addresses the fiduciary duty of a guardian. The case is relevant along with Struck vs. Cook County Public Guardian , to lay emphasis upon the fact that the Court (i.e. the Circuit Court of Cook County, and the judicial establishment recognizes that a guardianship is a ‘thin ice’ situation as in a parens patrie matter requires strict integrity, decency, and statutory compliance so as to not infringe of the basic protections of the Federal Constitution, the Illinois Constitution and most importantly the 14th Amendment. A Guardian’s power is thus severely limited solely to his specifically published grant (published in the order of appointment and the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3) and actions that are 1) reasonable, 2) necessary, and 3) benefit the word. It is respectfully suggested that the record herein and in case 07 P 5360 suggest that all the protective criteria were vitiated and ignored. (Judicial notice of this Court’s records and case 07 P 5360 is requested in the interest of justice).
The Summary Judgment order entered herein is particularly offensive to not only the origins, and principles, of Equity, but Article 1, Section 12 of the Illinois Constitution, but Amendment 14 of the United States Constitution. A litigant seeking the equitable relief of a foreclosure cannot engage in FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE or deal inappropriately with senior citizens. Indeed, the grant of Summary Judgment not only ignores statutory prohibitions, but even basic concepts that even lay litigants are aware.
In particular, how is the Byline Bank even before this Court to file a foreclosure action. An examination of the documents filed by the Byline Bank does not include an assignment, quit claim deed, or other evidence of a conveyance of the Security Interest from the original holder of the Mortgage (Plaza Bank) to Byline Bank). Byline Bank may have some relationship with other creditors of Mr. Sallas, but proxy litigation is not appropriate for a court of equity.
Indeed, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Byline Bank/appellee is replete with documents that connote AND emphasize the plaintiff’s ‘lack of doing equity, unclean hands, criminal conduct’ and serious conduct that raises serious concerns. The clear unequivocal violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22), and 720 ILCS 5/17 -56 cannot be ignored or swept under the Rug. Both statutes are remedial and intended to address the very concerns that are raised in these proceedings.
Further, even though the HIMMEL decision is ignored in these FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE cases the totality of the legislation enacted at both the State and Federal level manifests a demand that the elderly’s 14th Amendment protections not be trampled on by institutions such are noted herein.
The disclosure rules and ordinances enacted both at the Federal and State level that address loans to senior citizens and other vulnerable people are more than words on paper. They are intended to be strictly enforced, even if a Byline Bank, or a Court Appointed Guardian would be embarrassed or lose money. The spectacle created by the calculation of the alleged balance due illustrated the point. As the Guardian (Mr. Golbert) has never been specifically authorized to address any asset of Appellant Dean Sallas (including his marital property interests) serious questions of ultra vires conduct (as well as criminal contempt of court questions) are raised by the February 15, 2018 petition. These questions and the comments made by the Byline Bank in support of its MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT suggest some serious conspiratorial action.
On January 25, 2018 the contract that violated 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 was signed. This contract was attached to the complaint as the first 3 pages of exhibit H. It is respectfully submitted that the claimed balance due to the Byline Bank was approximately $175,000.00. There was no mention of any sundry secret judgments outstanding etc. In fact the Guardian’s February 15, 2018 petition to Judge Boliker similarly made no mention of such a judgment. Protection of Debtors under law require such items to be disclosed when the documents are signed.
Thus, the Byline Bank /Cook County Public Guardian pattern continues unabated in the lower Court. Mr. and Mrs. Sallas are elderly and vulnerable – ergo, being a bit disrespectful, it is the position of the defendant/appellant that the trial court ruled that if remedial legislation designed to protect against FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE interferes with the whim and caprice of the Byline Bank & Guardian the said legislation not only can be ignored, but the objecting elderly are silenced![4]
Without discovery, the appellant/defendant has not had the ability to make inquiry as to what if any attunements, special dispensations et al may have been facing him in these proceedings. It is apparent now that the appellant pursuant to the provision of 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56, the appellant might have a serious counterclaim against not only the Byline Bank, but others involved in the trial court proceedings. Section 56 may not come with the hype of a RIC0 action, but not only does this remedial legislation connote a legislative intent that the FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSERS face criminal charges, but on the Civil side the award to be assessed is Triple Damages, plus Attorney fees. So serious was the Illinois Legislature that this remedial legislation be readily available, that it also lowered the Standard of Proof to preponderance of the Evidence.
The appellee is not paranoid in suggesting some sort of attornment or special dispensation by Judge Boliker in approving the Guardian obfuscating a criminal action perpetrated against its ward. He cannot understand Judge Boliker and/or Judge Robles did not forward to Law enforcement a referral in this instant case. It is respectfully suggested that the totality of the facts memorialized in the record herein are a cogent example of FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE barred by Illinois Statutes, and so corrosive to the core values of America that not only must the Summary Judgment be reversed, but a referral to Law enforcement must be made. 18 USCA 4 demands the same.
The demand of the appellant for a referral is not taken lightly. Indeed, it is respectfully submitted that no making such a request would a measure of disrespect by the appellant for himself, but the Justice system. The calculation of loan balances demands the same. No Court can, in my opinion, garner the respect that is demanded to do its job and accept the calculation of a creditor that commences with a initial loan balance on January 25, 2018 and ends two years later after the payment of approximately $20,000 with a new balance of approximately $200,000 more than the initial debt
With all due respect, the Appellant suggests that the concept of EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW as defined by centuries of English and America Equity law cannot tolerate the conduct disclosed by the Byline Bank in this foreclosure suit toward an elderly couple i.e., Dean Sallas and Amelia Sallas. The Summary Judgment of foreclosure and the subsequent orders of Court approving the “sale” of the home of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas must be reversed and rendered for nought.
2.
WHEN A PARTY FILES A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THAT PARTY TO SUCEED IN HIS MOTION MUST MEET THE CRITERION OF TAKING THE FACTS IN THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO THE NON=MOVING PARTY THERE IS NOT A CHANCE IN HELL THAT THE NON-MOVING PARTY CAN PREVAIL.
The Judicial system of the State Court is the ‘escape value’ of society and thus the Court system must not only be held to the standard of “Caesar’s wife” but, in fact be free of bias, favoritism, and even the appearance of corruption. Thus, if a citizen is to be denied his right to a trial on the merits by a ‘short cut’ procedure of Summary Judgment the proof of liability cannot be tinged by obvious exaggerated claims for attorney fees, obvious breaches of fiduciary relationship, misleading petitions such as the February 15, 2018 document, suspicious calculations and assortments of balances due, and outright criminal action such as the Byline Bank’s violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a -22 on January 25, 2018.
In simple words, the Court must be absolutely free of corrupt conduct. Any tolerance of the corrupt conduct, such as a violation of a statute such as 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22, or 720 ILCS 5/17 -56 is a denial of equal protection of the law. In words more comfortable to a ‘lay defendant’ – Mr. and Mrs. Dean Sallas are entitled to a level playing field.
Reiterating, it is clear that on the facts most notable in the record, that the Byline Bank, while appearing as the plaintiff, does not provide evidence of its STANDING to bring this instant FORECLOSURE SUIT. The Mortgage Balance plaintiff seeks is obscene, clearly smacks of usury, over-reaching, and a bit of intentional fiction. Indeed, it is respectfully submitted, that on the level playing field the trial court would sua sponde dismiss a foreclosure suit that submits a contract claiming a balance of approximate $175,000, and after adding up all the charges claims after the payment of $20,000.00 a balance of approximately $375,000. In fact it is submitted that pursuant to Himmel, such a proposition would require the Court to refer such a claim to Law Enforcement for investigation as to criminal violations. Indeed, it is suggested the remedial statute of 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56 is relevant as if 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22. Indeed, public protection demands such a referral. Elderly citizens are not flotsam!
Equality before the Law is not a difficult concept. The first paragraph of 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution recites America’s credo. The concept is not difficult, not subtle, and not subject to interpretation, except to the extent that someone or some entity is attempting to avoid the clear unequivocal principle.
“Lawyer talk,” “Judicial distinctions” and double speak are the hall=marks of the Byline Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court’s granting the same. No matter how the package is presented, the foreclosure proceeding is based upon the COMMERCIAL LOAN DOCUMENTS, and an alleged default on the payment of the same executed on January 25, 2018 by both Mr. and Mrs. Dean Sallas.
Section 22 makes it very clear that not only has the Byline Bank committed a crimes, but it cannot profit directly or indirectly from its misdeeds to wit:
(755 ILCS 5/11a-22) (from Ch. 110 1/2, par. 11a-22)
Sec. 11a-22. Trade and contracts with a person with a disability.
(a) Anyone who by trading with, bartering, gaming or any other device, wrongfully possesses himself of any property of a person known to be a person with a disability commits a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Every note, bill, bond or other contract by any person for whom a plenary guardian has been appointed or who is adjudged to be unable to so contract is void as against that person and his estate, but a person making a contract with the person so adjudged is bound thereby.
(Source: P.A. 99-143, eff. 7[5]
There is no exception connoted in this remedial statute.
The Byline Bank is not a meek vendor who lent his life savings to Mr. and Mrs. Sallas and is being denied enforcement of his note because of obscure , vague, and little known statute. The Byline Bank has a New York Stock Exchange symbol, and is a publicly traded company. It lawyers have sought and obtained tens of thousands of dollars in Attorney fees in an abbreviated Court proceeding that required no discovery, no testimony, no responses to either a defense or counterclaim etc. There is no just reason that the Byline Bank should not be held to RULE OF LAW.
It should be noted that section 22, does not by itself obviate the claimed liability of Dean Sallas. Its effect is to make enforcement of the foreclosure impossible as Amy Sallas is a necessary party to the litigation and her interest in her home is barred by the clear and unequivocal words of the statute. Marketable title because of the criminal action of the Byline Bank is NOT available to them. Thus, the foreclosure suit should have been dismissed.
3.
THE LAW FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE OF ANY KIND CANNOT BE TOLERATED SENIOR CITIZENS IN ILLINOIS ARE ENTITLED TO PROTECTION UNDER
The fact is Mr. and Mrs. Sallas, like many other senior citizens here in Illinois spent their productive years saving for their ‘later years.’ Mrs. Sallas was ‘targeted’ for a Guardianship. A Guardian was appointed for her, pursuant to the mandate of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b which clearly limits the Guardian’s authority, renders the Guardian a fiduciary, and complicates the life of both Mr. and Mrs. Sallas.
While this Appeal does not address the Guardianship fiasco the February 15, 2018 petition placed in the record by the Byline Bank does render it relevant. Section 3b states:
(b) Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the person with a disability, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual's actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations. The order shall conform with Sections 11a-12 and 11a-14.
The 4th page of the 3 page exhibit H attached to the plaintiff’s complaint raises Hurricane red flags. The Summary Judgment order similarly raises another set of warnings. The implications while at this point are merely suppositions they cannot be ignored. 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56 is a clear mandate and statement that the Rule of Law applies to everyone including but not limited to senior citizens. FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE, including that evidenced in these and the Probate Guardianship proceedings are not protected – and should not and cannot be protected in this Court.
That reported petition of February 15, 2018 (and other actions) of the Court appointed guardian connote that the defendant Charles P. Golbert, the Cook County Public Guardian indicate a serious over-reaching by the said Court official. By Section 22, as to Mrs. Sallas the home loan transaction was over. Attempting to obfuscate and/or avoid the protections granted to his ward certainly is contrary to Mr. Golbert’s fiduciary relationship and the authority allowable to be provided a guardian without serious conflict with the 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
To discourage conduct such as exhibited by the plaintiff Byline Bank, the guardian for Mrs. Sallas and its assignee, the Illinois Legislature not only provided that FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE was a crime, but imposed triple damages and attorney fee penalties on the offender.
In this instant proceeding it has be observed that if the loan balance was two dollars and fifty cents, the loan documents should reflect that amount. In fact, in legitimate personal and business transactions such is the common practice. However, in this instant proceeding Mr. and Mrs. Sallas according to the affidavits submitted by the Byline Bank in support of it Motion for Summary Judgment the actual balance was with interest in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Even in the submission by the Cook County Public Guardian on February 15, 2018 the documents were designed to mislead Judge Boliker and place her in a state not in accord with objective reality. Such conduct is unacceptable and wrong.
Ironically, the clear misrepresentations revealed in the February 15, 2018 document would even be wrong in the most coercive totalitarian society. They and their follow up, and in particular the Summary Judgment cannot be tolerated here in Illinois.
The judgment of the lower court cannot stand and must be reversed and the instant foreclosure action dismissed.
It the risk of being verbose, Dean Sallas notes that
Financial Elder Abuse, is not a vague term coined by the Congress and the legislature to describe a societal malady that is becoming very prevalent. Major periodicals such as the New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Netflix, et al have all run articles describing the same and the role of the judicial and the political establishment therein. It may not be politic to say the same in writing, but this instant cases fills the spectrum of abuse.
This appeal may be limited to just the case of BYINE BANK vs. AMY SALLAS but the attachment by the plaintiff of the Guardian’s petition of February 15, 2018 to its Motion for Summary Judgment demonstrates the tie in between the Guardian appointed in case 07 P 5360 and the instant matter. The inclusion of the Petition et al was clearly intended to distract from the overt criminality that occurred on January 25, 2018.
755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 is remedial legislation (as is 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56). Remedial legislation is broadly construed and rarely ignored as it reflects societies attempt to address a serious problem. The trial court below chose to ignore the protections mandated by society and the legislature. The aforesaid Petition of February 15, 2018, was intended to give credence to the idea that the Probate Court recognized the factual situation and after due consideration approved Mrs. Sallas’ guardian entering in the transaction of January 25, 2018.
Reading the Petition of February 15, 2018 obviates the argument of prior attornment by the Probate Court as not one word appears in the petition that alerts the Probate Judge supervising the Guardian that a crime was committed by the Byline Bank, that the principal balance of the loan was NOT approximately $175,000.00, or that Financial Elder Abuse had been committed and the Judge was not being told the salient and important facts. Apparently the ruse worked in the Probate Division and again before the lower court.
There is no question as to words of section 22 and the fact that the criminal violating the act is barred from collection of the void obligation from the property of the victim (Amelia Sallas). Slight of hand is obviated and barred. The Court below should have been aware of the full meaning of Section 22 and the legislative intend to protect the elderly from predators. Denying Sallas the opportunity of discovery and presenting a defense denied him (and his wife – a necessary party) of due process of law.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons mentioned herein, the Appellant Dean Sallas respectfully requests this Court to reverse the decision of the trial court, dismiss the foreclosure proceeding and to restore Mr. and Mrs. Sallas to their home.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dean A. Sallas, appellant/defendant.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CONCLUSION
Elderly (persons such as Dean and Amelia Sallas) are reported daily in the media as being subjected to predation by unscrupulous individuals who relentlessly prey on them. Publicity such as articles in the New Yorker, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Huffington Press, Netflix, GAO reports etc. have had limited impact on protection in spite of legislation such as 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22, which the trial court totally ignored, or 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56. It further appears that the ancient and hallmark criteria of Equity Court have also been abrogated in this Court.
Equity Courts (such as the trial court in these proceedings historically did not require either section 22 or section 56 to address the atrocity of financial elderly abuse and predation of the elder proudly pleaded by the Byline Bank in these proceedings. The fact that an averred co-conspirator promulgates its co=operation from ultra vires wrongful assumptions of nefarious over-reach tolerated by another Court in another branch of this Court fails to deprive this Court of the duty of compliance with equitable concepts.
The Guardian appointed for Amy Sallas is limited in his authority not only by the words of appointment authorized by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b, to wit:
(b) Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the person with a disability, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual's actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations. The order shall conform with Sections 11a-12 and 11a-14.
But his appointment is further limited by his fiduciary relationship and theoretically by a supervising judge and the judge’s diligence and devotion to the Rule of Law. The trial court herein sitting in Chancery (equity) has an affirmative duty (as the conscience of the sovereign) to address the totality of the situation. Its power of Judicial notice obviates any claim or argument leading to benign neglect.
Thus, there is no excuse for the trial court to not observe that:
1) The home loan sought to be foreclosed was predatory, as it was a procrustean commercial loan. This loan arrangement augmented the income of the Byline line Bank, not only be its terms, short duration, higher than similar loan arrangement for home loans as to interest, fees, et al,
2) The government sponsored reverse interest loan was not offered to this elderly couple, even though it would have eliminated the very cash flow problems that lead to this foreclosure. (The home had a value of approximately ½ million dollars and the alleged indebtedness was less than $200,000.00.
3) That interest and terms were more expensive than the published loan arrangements reported in the media for the area, type of dwelling, et al.
4) That the guardian’s conduct was highly unusual, appeared to be over-reaching, and less than honorable.
5) The Byline Bank’s claim for attorney fees is totally unreasonable. The record reveals that the total claim was significantly greater but rejected in part by the Court. It is respectfully suggested that the over-reach of the plaintiff herein is so significant that it should be addressed by this court. In certain Federal cases excessive attorney fees are reported to result in a denial of all attorney fees. Under Illinois law, excessive interest charges, result in loss of all interest charges. .
Finally, the appellant wishes to spread of record and point out Chancery (Equity cases) are not tried in a vacuum. When the Chancellor take jurisdiction, especially when a claim for Summary Judgment is made, the entire proceeding is before him – not just bits and pieces. Thus, the actions of Court appointees in abdicating their duty to protect their wards has to be noted. Attention is thus called to the fact the Court appointed Guardian failed to present 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 as a defense to this foreclosure. The Guardian at all times relevant was well aware that Amy Sallas is a necessary party to the foreclosure and the clear words of section 22 prohibit the collection of the void loan from Mrs. Sallas or her estate. Mrs. Sallas’ home is patently part of her marital estate. The Guardian’s authority is limited by the 14th Amendment and the section 3b words:
Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual's actual mental, physical, and adaptive limitations.
As noted supra - guardian is not the alter=ego of his ward and his authority is limited by the criteria to those specific actions that are in fact 1) reasonable, 2) necessary, and 3) beneficial to the ward.
Standing out is the spectrum of a Court appointed guardian saddling his ward and her husband with a procrustean commercial loan arrangement clearly detrimental to them. (If the Court exercises judicial notice it will also recall that during the January 2018 loans were prevalent and interest rates extremely low – if memory is correct, some lenders in even making negative interest loans) It therefore follows that the trial court did not operate or render its decisions in a vacuum. The trial courts viewing these proceedings had affirmative duties to address the apparent irregularities that were being disclosed – even if the same were not of record. Chancery Courts do not engage in blind man’s bluff – only Justice and protection of America’s core values such as equal protection of the law.
Equal Protection of the Law pursuant to the 14th “Amendment is more than a catch phrase; it is a core value of American civilization. The perversion of the same in any manner is unacceptable in all forms especially in relation to the vulnerable in our society. The Elderly (such as Dean Sallas age 85, and Amelia Sallas (age ) are particularly vulnerable. The Illinois legislature recognized the same when it enacted 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 and 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56.
The enactment of the aforesaid statutes was an attempt to remediate the very maladies that are prevalent in this appeal. Mr. and Mrs. Sallas became involved in Court proceedings that resulted in their 50 plus year marriage being grossly interfered with by a Court appointed guardian. This Guardian ignored his fiduciary and statutory responsibilities and acted allegedly in concert with a Predatory lender to forfeit the home of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas using predatory lending tactics including a commercial loan arrangement that culminated in an approximately $175,000.00 loan balance on January 25, 2018 resulting roughly two years later in a deficiency loan balance of approximately $350,000.00 with the apparent attornment of the Court appointed guardian.
As this litigation was culminated in by a decree of SUMMARY JUDGMENT rather than a trial, this Appellate Court is respectfully requested to vacate the Summary Judgment order as being anticipatory and improperly granted. The criteria for the grant of a Summary Judgment being – “the court determining that upon a reasonable examination of all the facts of this case in the light most favorable to the non-moving party – there are no facts that would tending to allow a court to rule in favor of the non-moving party. Considering the admission by all (including the plaintiff) that 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 has been violated by plaintiff, Summary Judgment must be denied. Indeed, in light of 720 ILCS 5/17—56 and the Neprozatis case the predatory nature of the Commercial loan documents of January25, 2018 which are the basis for this foreclosure similarly are deleterious to the success of this foreclosure suit.
Appellant respectfully urges this Court to reverse the Summary Judgment granted by the Circuit Court, and vacate all subsequent orders of foreclosure, sale and confirmation and sending this matter back to the trial for the plaintiff to have leave to file defenses, obtain discovery, file counterclaims, and enjoy due process of law and a trial on the merits, if any.
[1] It should be noted that at the time of this signing of the Commercial loan Documents, Mrs. Sallas (Amy Sallas) (age approaching 80years) had been adjudicated in case 07 P 5360 Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois entitled In re: Amelia Sallas as a disabled person and a Guardian was appointed for her. Ignoring, the clear prohibition of statute, prior to the defendant being given an opportunity to do discovery, present defenses, or even plead to the complaint, on ( ) the Court below entered Summary Judgment in the principal sum of $ . On ( _) the lower Court confirmed the sale of the secured premises. From this final order within term time this timely appeal was brought.
[2] Mr. Sallas’ Cook County, Illinois attorney withdrew his appearance on ( ), and he has been pro-se since that date.
[3] Mrs. Sallas, is sued in this proceeding by the Byline Bank as Amelia Sallas. The Commercial loan agreement executed on January 25, 2018, recognizes Mrs. Sallas’ person interest in the subject property. The undated signature page signed by Mr. Golbert, the Court appointed guardian for Mrs. Sallas – and apparently the subject matter of the Petition in case 07 P 5360 is the immediate following page to exhibit H. This page is un=usual in that 1) it has a signature line for Dean Sallas and the guardian failed to include with his signature an exculpation clause. As no judgment was sought by the Appellee against Mr. Golbert in any capacity including but not limited to Public Guardian the Commercial contract of both Mr. and Mrs. Sallas is materially changed. Such a situation should release Mr. Sallas from liability. Mrs. Sallas is release by section 22.
[4] It is respectfully submitted that regardless of whether or not the appellant’s appeal is accepted or not, the conduct of the COOK COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN and the apparent attornment of the BYLINE BANK and its attorneys must be reported to law enforcement. The February 15, 2018 petition in case 07 P 5360 submitted to Judge Boliker is much more than ethically challenged. The Guardian had a duty to provide Judge Boliker with all the facts, including but not limited to: 1) the violation by the Byline Bank of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22, 2) the clear overcharge on interest and other charges occasioned by a Commercial loan, 3) the fact that other loan arrangements were available – the home had a value of approximately ½ million dollars and thus several hundred thousand dollars in equity, 4) the transaction had been complete for 3 weeks in violation of the law, 5) the consequences of the criminal action of the Byline Bank, and 6) that there was a secret balance due that was not being disclosed by the Byline Bank.
[5] Dean Sallas does not admit to any liability on any note that the Byline Bank claims to have. Dean Sallas is still entitled to his day in Court. The dismissal of this foreclosure lawsuit for failure to be able to sue all necessary parties does not foreclose the Byline Bank from suing Dean Sallas at law. The Statute just bars Byline from suing Mrs. Sallas. (It should be noted that the contract signed by the Guardian was signed without an exculpation clause – it appears on its face to be an acclamation of personal liability on the part of the Cook County Public Guardian). Fortuitously, on the foreclosure proceeding is before this Court.
Wed, Mar 8 at 2:17 PMUnder Article 1 Section 12 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 it would appear that the e-mail I was forwarded would be sufficient to at least get sufficient help to meet the "technical" requirement of the Supreme Court of Illinois.That said - I certainly hope that the Government of the State of Illinois will recognize that the complaint that is made in the e-mail that I'm "responding" is the ROOT CAUSE OF THE VIOLENCE THAT PLAGUES OUR CITIES. THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS THE ESCAPE VALVE OF OUR SOCIETY, & IF ORDINARY CITIZENS ARE SUBJECTED TO REPEATED INJUSTICE = AND WORSE - OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS REFUSE TO ADDRESS THE SAME --- THE OUTLET IS VIOLENCE AND LAWLESSNESS.If those officials of our government are blind to the criterion and morals of our society - how can you expect ordinary citizens to respect the RULE OF LAW!It is time for integrity in government and in particular PUBLIC OFFICIALS charged with the stewardship of our Democracy.Joe Louis et al - I stand shoulder to shoulder with you! The time for integrity in government and government service is NOW!!