[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-278976-105":53,"doc-detail-278976-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","firstmerit-bank-v-bridgeview-bank-order-on-foreclosure-and-deficiency-judgment","FirstMerit Bank v. Bridgeview Bank - Order on Foreclosure and Deficiency Judgment","","Appellate review in Illinois addresses a foreclosure judgment and an order confirming sale involving property at 480 Saunders Road, Lake Forest. Defendants challenge foreclosure and sale approval after defaults on a mortgage note originally funded through George Washington Savings Bank and later acquired by FirstMerit Bank. The court affirms the foreclosure and confirmation of sale, but modifies the deficiency-judgment amount. Disputes include standing, the sufficiency of pleadings and supporting affidavits, and loss-mitigation positions in the record.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":21,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/invoices/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/firstmerit-bank-v-bridgeview-bank-order-on-foreclosure-and-deficiency-judgment/278976/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/firstmerit-bank-v-bridgeview-bank-order-on-foreclosure-and-deficiency-judgment/278976.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Taylor Morgan","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-14","2026-09-15",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":79},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What transaction and loan secured the property at issue?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"In January 2009, defendants purchased the Lake Forest property using part of a $540,000 loan secured by a mortgage. The loan matured in January 2010, and the defendants defaulted.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"How did FirstMerit Bank acquire the relevant loan documents?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"After George Washington Savings Bank closed, the FDIC was appointed receiver. FirstMerit Bank then acquired assets through a purchase agreement, including the note and mortgage for the property and certain guaranties.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What was the appellate court’s outcome regarding foreclosure, sale confirmation, and the deficiency amount?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"The court affirmed the foreclosure judgment and the order confirming the sale, while modifying the amount of the deficiency judgment.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},278976,1790561249,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":20,"category_name":21,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":79,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":140,"read_time":141},1099523885336,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","2016 IL App (2d) 150364-U  \nNo. 2-15-0364  \nOrder filed May 18, 2016  \nModified upon denial of rehearing June 22, 2016  \nNOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1) .  \n\n| IN THE\u003Cbr>APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS\u003Cbr>SECOND DISTRICT |  |  |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| FIRSTMERIT BANK, N.A., as successor in interest to George Washington Savings Bank,\u003Cbr>Plaintiff-Appellee,\u003Cbr>v.\u003Cbr>BRIDGEVIEW BANK, as Trustee under Trust Agreement dated December 25, 2008, and known as Trust No. 1-3388 ;\u003Cbr>INDOMITABLE, LLC; ROBERT A.\u003Cbr>KOWALSKI; WILLIAM A. KOWALSKI; UNKNOWN OWNERS and NON-RECORD CLAIMANTS,\u003Cbr>Defendants-Appellants. | ))\u003Cbr>))\u003Cbr>))\u003Cbr>))\u003Cbr>))\u003Cbr>))\u003Cbr>))\u003Cbr>)) | Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County.\u003Cbr>No. 10-CH-3885\u003Cbr>Honorable\u003Cbr>Margaret A. Marcouiller, Judge, Presiding. |\n\nPRESIDING JUSTICE SCHOSTOK delivered the judgment of the court.  \nJustices McLaren and Spence concurred in the judgment.  \nORDER  \n¶ 1 Held: Trial court did not err in entering judgment of foreclosure and order confirming sale, but amount of deficiency judgment would be modified.  \n¶ 2 In this appeal, the defendants—Bridgeview Bank (as trustee of a trust), Indomitable, LLC, and Robert and William Kowalski—challenge the judgment of foreclosure and the order approving sale entered with respect to certain property. We affirm as modified.  \n¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND  \n¶ 4 In January 2009, the defendants purchased for development the property at 480 Saunders Road, Lake Forest, for $690,000 (Property) . The defendants funded the purchase in part with a $540,000 loan from George Washington Savings Bank (GWSB), secured by a mortgage on the Property. Although the six-acre Property had only one large house and some outbuildings, it had R-3 zoning, permitting the possible future use of the Property for more than one residence. In June 2009, the Plan Commission of Lake Forest granted tentative approval to a plat for a threelot subdivision on the Property.  \n¶ 5 The loan matured on January 1, 2010. The defendants defaulted.  \n¶ 6 On February 19, 2010, GWSB was closed. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed as the receiver. That same day, the FDIC and the plaintiff, FirstMerit Bank, entered into an agreement (Purchase Agreement) whereby the plaintiff acquired many of GWSB’s assets, including the note and mortgage for the Property, and the personal guaranties of Robert and William Kowalski (collectively, Note) .  \n¶ 7 In July 2010, the plaintiff filed an action to foreclose upon the Property. Approximately one year later, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint seeking a total of $572,865 . The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff’s ownership of the Note was not apparent from the face of the complaint, because the Purchase Agreement contained a reference to certain assets being excluded from the transfer, and the list of those excluded assets was so heavily redacted that it could not be determined whether the Note was among the excluded assets. The  \nplaintiff responded that the defendants bore the burden of proving lack of standing, and that they had not carried this burden. On the date set for the hearing on the motion, the defendants did not appear and the motion was stricken. Thereafter, the defendants filed an answer asserting, among other things, the affirmative defense of lack of standing.  \n¶ 8 In November 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and for entry of a judgment of foreclosure and sale. In support of its motion, the plaintiff attached the affidavit of Deborah Wagner, an officer of the plaintiff. Wagner averred, among other things, that the Note was among the assets of GWSB acquired by the plaintiff through the Purchase Agreement, and that the plaintiff had in its possession the originals of all of the documents upon which it was suing. Copies of the documents were attached to t","cbCaip18NjuYExR9","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaip18NjuYExR9","pdf",80895,24,"English","# Background\n## Loan and purchase of the property\n## Closure of GWSB and acquisition of the note\n## Foreclosure proceedings and pleadings\n## Summary judgment and affidavits\n## Loss mitigation and short-sale discussions","[{\"question\":\"What transaction and loan secured the property at issue?\",\"answer\":\"In January 2009, defendants purchased the Lake Forest property using part of a $540,000 loan secured by a mortgage. The loan matured in January 2010, and the defendants defaulted.\"},{\"question\":\"How did FirstMerit Bank acquire the relevant loan documents?\",\"answer\":\"After George Washington Savings Bank closed, the FDIC was appointed receiver. FirstMerit Bank then acquired assets through a purchase agreement, including the note and mortgage for the property and certain guaranties.\"},{\"question\":\"What was the appellate court’s outcome regarding foreclosure, sale confirmation, and the deficiency amount?\",\"answer\":\"The court affirmed the foreclosure judgment and the order confirming the sale, while modifying the amount of the deficiency judgment.\"}]","FirstMerit Bank v. Bridgeview Bank - Order on Foreclosure and Deficiency Judgment | PDF",1789514475,8]