MARK WlLK

PlaiaSiff

TO: Mr.Thomas TarQglia

Attorney at Law
7819 W. L a .Aue,
NO-EE ti@?%
You are hereby notified that NLMZK W L X . - Plaintiff
Name

A true and correct eopg oP the same is attachedhere40 and semeb m p i yon.

on the l2 dayof NOVEM3EB

Date November 12 2010 -

Atty. No.: w31JV

Attorney (orproso!P-etitionar)
Name: ~ ~ A R K ~ K the signed person certifies that the statements
~ d - 337 E. N m IN. set forth in herein are h e and correct.
ciQ/Bte/ap: 'WKEELING, IL. 60090-4525
Tklephone: 630-202-1798
 FN THE CHCUKZ'COURT OF C-4308COUMTY, ILLINOIS
C O WDm-, CHAN-Y DIVfSION

Mark Wilk

Plain-
>)
1
VS. 1 10 CH 23086

Thaddeus W i ei ;i
l >)
m a t {s ). 1

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

fNTBODUCTlON AND BACKGROUND OF THE W E

1. On June 1,2010 a m e of &on to Quite Ti4fbr Other aeIfefwas fit&. Alleging

that the mnveppdce md the p r p d deed 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;iteQuiet T i e and

plaintifPs possessory interest c k to the ratdentidreat estate- A csuse ofaction for a

void or i n d d of canbemxkataqhe.
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 sl i f e lxcmse a grantor cannot dispose of

his or her property by deeds ncrt d&vered in his w her H ILa&a v. hh,
409 Ell.

556 ( 1951)- And when a deed is not deliveredbefore &e p t 0 8 s d d ~no

, act of the

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

effective. Bt&im.v. ~AS&Y& 11511LL5pp.576(2dD&. 1904). affd,213IL625, (1905).

5. Plaintiff has standing zts he also &S&I possesmq in- to the 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 ofhis

father during M q of 1999-

6. Successive summons and copies of the compkt were placed for s&ce and were

returned not semed.

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

Betty Wilk was served && &e a h summcmls 4 mpy og the cumpbt on August 21,

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

September 01,2010.

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

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

And on

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

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

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

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

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

claim if it appears "'bepd t h a t & p & t i f f m n ~ 1 ~ ~ e 1 ~ . o ~ e f 0 £ E ~ i n ~ p a o £ch i sb

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 prove no set of f k t s in support of his &&XI d-&%

would en* him to relief? CO~@
V.

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

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

* tiei3ovesp is very
I

Indeed it may appear on the fkx of&e p3- a remote a d &ly but

that is not the test Moreo~er,it is d &&Bed that, in pitssitngon a motion to disrmss, whether

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

U.S. 232,236 ( 1974).

.
Defendant on Skpteznbs03,2030 M a d ; z r r t

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

a motion to dismks under 735 ILCS

to the m t i s n was exhibit %" which is a COPY of the

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

taken as true and the zre interpreted in the light most fa~odik
to the non-moving

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

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

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

App. 3d 72 (2003). So, too, is a deed mhich is produced through k d in the fxtum:

Fraudin&ehkbeen&&s&$induf&thatarises&af>arty
signs a docmraeat-& I- f& hwfedg;e- ofthe character or essential tams
of the document. lk4kLasrnzz Z.a&g, 8% f .M%, 5002 @& Ck), &. I ~ ~ & d s u b
nom. Ever ViaaPC@.a Sm &&Fed Bank, EXB, 111SCt. 423 (1990)-This kmd of
fiaud arguably precludes appktion of thc D'Omc6 doctrine because it renders the
undedying ageet~errtvoid.FDIC Gar@,928 F a 1558, 1565 (13th Cir.1993).In
contrast, fraud in the i n d t w d not h;rve dre same &feet because it would
render the instrument m e d y void&1e, md thus mpabk of m f e r . Id. (cia'ngLm$g
v. FDIC, 4%US- 85,9344 @987>].

therefore, D e h & is not entided to

Illinois, record notice imputes to a pzrtFfiaser knowledge that dbe +xed horn an &tion

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

(l3ankr. ND. Ill. 1986).

deed was April 19,1999. Fin-therm~re~

d e k n c bw
~ d d Immw or should kxmw a subsequent

possessmy interest claim was filed against the properiy.

5
 However, there is a second Bind ofco~smcdvenotttre, 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 property
whenadqofkgtrkg.arises.XnguirBnAce~&f~&tadil'pt
~qutfpWOUldIrmbz~t~~tA9i&st, 383 in. 238,44 N.E,2d 850
(1942).If a physical inspecdon of.dze property reveal an &erse interest, then

inquiry. Id at 244,4# N.E-Zdat &ere is a m i n gxsxs&m other than

the vendor, the purch;tserhas a
interest in &e premisesenJses
(1969). The prospective
inconsistent with tke ictaim of o-1.;p
at 544.
rnquire of &at party as to his tenure and
16,245 N.E.2d 539
f f i &at are
by the m r d owner- Td at 23,245 N.E.2d

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 Y 06 BlApp126 26,245 N E 2 539 (1969). This
 possession was OW or kxpkkgof p t o r or 0.5 other ~~ as to the
rights ofthe p o n in possession, lmt he is bound to inquire ofthe person in
possession by what tenure he holcfs d what htersx he &ims Open possession is
s~cieMmc~such~~witt.i&of;91~egaIand
occupant G m - a - mN& h&4ffimb% %
i &T&%, 2-77

Rnhsiwv. 2 2d 273,Ztn @?54). The prepme fbr & requirement is obious:in the title

bud coat- the de-g -tor can a s d y cover its tracJEs by proffering a lease or rental

agreement and m a b g a s q x d k S y m v e case to the p&aser the peecm in possession

is a mere tenant In other words, h e inp.blirg notice && can be &mded by the grantor is not

reliable.

It appears that detixaht dkgihy ofhis Ed&& and his hmxbc&m contends that the
"<A"

exhibits attached to a amplaint become a part ofthe ,md 6actwaI matters m such exhibits
which are at oddswith a c o m p h t s itllegptions control over those conflictmg degations. Outbomd

Mmire Cq.v. J ~ CZtis*

D ( 1985 1,133 33.&.3d
&Sm, k. 238,245 A motion to dismiss

does not admit aUegations ia a wmpfaiat are neg&dby txmkkkg Piacts ia the attached

exhibit. Such contention or asgument by defenhlt's attorney is without substance or merit.

111. Conclusi0~1:

For dl the foregoing reasons, defendaats2section 2-615 Motion to Dismiss should be

denied. Or in the a
l
- the -1JePtofthe gAak&Eto ddxe C-t

Attp. No. 99500

Mark W&
Wheeling, IL.t5#0%4525
(630) 202-1798