The Illinois Appellate Court recently ruled on a case involving Nationstar Mortgage LLC and Infinite Light, an unincorporated association. The court upheld the method of service used by Nationstar in a mortgage foreclosure case. This ruling is significant because it clarifies how service can be conducted on voluntary unincorporated associations under Illinois law.

The case, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Lewis, was filed under docket number 1-25-0550 and was decided on October 28, 2026. The ruling affects parties involved in similar foreclosure cases, particularly those dealing with unincorporated associations. It highlights the legal standards for service of process, which is the procedure used to give legal notice to parties involved in a court case.

In this case, Nationstar Mortgage filed a complaint to foreclose on a property located at 7236 South Michigan Avenue in Chicago. The property was previously owned by Simeon Lewis, who transferred it to Infinite Light. Nationstar attempted to serve Infinite Light personally but could not locate any officers or agents associated with the unincorporated association. As a result, Nationstar opted to serve Infinite Light by publication, a method allowed under Illinois law when a defendant cannot be found.

The dispute arose when Infinite Light filed a motion to quash the service, arguing that Nationstar's service by publication was improper. The case eventually made its way to the Illinois Appellate Court after the circuit court denied Infinite Light's motion. The court found that Nationstar had made reasonable efforts to locate Infinite Light and that service by publication was appropriate.

The court's ruling emphasized that under Illinois law, specifically section 2-205.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a voluntary unincorporated association can be served by publication if the plaintiff demonstrates that the defendant cannot be found after due inquiry. The court noted, "Nationstar was unable to personally serve an officer of Infinite Light because none was registered with the Secretary of State and Nationstar could not have served an agent at Infinite Light’s office because no agent was registered." This statement underscores the court's reasoning for allowing service by publication.

The court also addressed Infinite Light's argument that Nationstar should have attempted to serve Lewis, claiming he was an agent of Infinite Light. The court found no evidence that Lewis was an officer of the association, which is required for personal service. The ruling clarified that the law does not prioritize personal service over service by publication in this context.

The impact of this ruling is significant for future mortgage foreclosure cases involving unincorporated associations. It sets a precedent for how service of process can be conducted when traditional methods fail. This ruling may provide guidance to other plaintiffs facing similar challenges in locating defendants.

Going forward, this decision reinforces the importance of diligent inquiry when attempting to serve unincorporated associations. It confirms that if a plaintiff can demonstrate that they have made reasonable efforts to locate a defendant, service by publication can be a valid option. This ruling may encourage other mortgage lenders to pursue foreclosure actions with greater confidence in the service process.

As for what’s next, Infinite Light may consider appealing the decision to a higher court. However, details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. This case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in mortgage foreclosure actions and the importance of understanding the legal requirements for serving defendants.