Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Clark - September 30, 2015 - Appellate Court Opinion

Sep 16, 2026

Upload by Mabel

Appellate Court opinion in a consolidated mortgage foreclosure dispute brought by Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP against David and Robin Clark, along with multiple other defendants. The court addresses two appeals: Boyd’s challenge to the trial court’s jurisdiction based on alleged improper service and denial of his motion to quash; and Clark’s challenge to disbursement of sale proceeds, arguing insufficient evidence of the bank’s right to pay off the prior mortgage. After reviewing the claims, the appellate court affirms the trial court’s orders, finding no merit.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryPaper Templates

FormatPDF

Pages10

Reading Time4 min

AccessFree to download

Opinion

Consolidated Appeals

Background

Service of Process and Motions

Disbursement of Sale Proceeds

Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Clark, 2015 IL App (1st) 133149 Appellate Court Caption District & No. Filed Decision Under Review Judgment Counsel on Appeal COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, PlaintiffAppellee, v. DAVID CLARK; ROBIN CLARK, a/k/a Robin D. Clark; CITICORP VENDOR FINANCE, INC. ; McCANN INDUSTRIES, INC. ; THE HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP, INC. s/i/i to The Hanover Insurance Company; COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. ; STANLEY H. BOYD; UNKNOWN OWNERS; and NONRECORD CLAIMANTS, Defendants-Appellants. First District, Third Division Docket Nos. 1-13-3149, 1-14-1082, 1-14-2151 cons. September 30, 2015 Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Nos. 08-CH-19406, 08-D-5204; the Hon. John H. Ehrich, Judge, presiding. Affirmed. Deborah L. King, P.C., of Chicago (Deborah L. King, of counsel), for appellant Stanley H. Boyd. Denise Brewer & Associates, of Chicago (Denise Brewer, of counsel), for appellant Robin Clark. Johnson & Bell, Ltd., of Chicago (Joseph R. Marconi, David M. Macksey, and Ramses Jalalpour, of counsel), for appellee. Panel PRESIDING JUSTICE MASON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Fitzgerald Smith and Lavin concurred in the judgment and opinion. OPINION ¶ 1 In this consolidated case, defendants Stanley Boyd and Robin Clark appeal separate orders entered by the trial court relating to mortgage foreclosure proceedings initiated by the mortgage lender Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Countrywide), which later assigned the mortgage to plaintiff Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP (Countrywide Servicing) . Boyd challenges the trial court’s jurisdiction when it entered a default order against him asserting he was not properly served with the summons and complaint and seeks review of the trial court’s denial of his motion to quash service of process. Clark appeals the trial court’s order disbursing proceeds from the sale of her prior marital home to Bank of America, N.A.1 because she claims no evidence was offered supporting the bank’s right to the proceeds to payoff the first mortgage on the home. Both Boyd and Clark claim that the trial court erred when it: (1) ruled on their motions without an evidentiary hearing and (2) refused to certify their proposed bystander’s report. Finding no merit in Boyd’s and Clark’s separate and combined claims, we affirm. ¶ 2 BACKGROUND ¶ 3 On April 26, 1999, husband and wife David and Robin Clark refinanced the mortgage on their marital home located at 6721 South Bennett Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. The Clarks executed a note with Countrywide in the principle amount of $322,150 secured by a mortgage on their home. The Clarks also executed a line of credit with Countrywide in the amount of $30,000, which was secured by a second mortgage on their home that was inferior to the first mortgage. On July 15, 2006, Boyd loaned money to Clark, his daughter, and secured his $71,500 loan with a mortgage recorded on the marital home. Boyd’s mortgage was inferior to both of Countrywide’s mortgages. ¶ 4 On May 28, 2008, Clark filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. A day later, Countrywide filed a complaint to foreclose the first mortgage, which had been in default 1It is well settled that a court may take judicial notice of matters that are commonly known or facts that are not generally known but are readily verifiable from sources of indisputable accuracy. Murdy v. Edgar, 103 Ill. 2d 384, 394 (1984) . More specifically, a reviewing court “ ‘may take judicial notice of a written decision that is part of the record of another court.’ ” Bank of America, N.A. v. Kulesza, 2014 IL App (1st) 132075, ¶ 21 (quoting Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Kmiecik, 2013 IL App (1st) 121700,¶ 37) . We take judicial notice of our supreme court’s decision in BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Mitchell, 2014 IL 116311, ¶ 3, identifying BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP as the entity formerly

FAQs

What issues did Boyd raise on appeal?

Boyd argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction because he claimed he was not properly served with the summons and complaint, and he sought review of the denial of his motion to quash service of process.

What issue did Robin Clark raise regarding the sale proceeds?

Clark appealed the order disbursing proceeds from the sale of her prior marital home, contending there was no evidence supporting the bank’s right to those proceeds to pay off the first mortgage.

What was the appellate court’s decision?

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s orders, finding no merit in Boyd’s and Clark’s separate and combined claims.

Sep 16, 2026

Upload by Mabel