- 10 -
an obligation claimed by petitioners to be a liability,
respondent must prove that it is more probable than not that
petitioners would not be called upon to pay that portion of the
obligation claimed. Id.
Respondent has failed to prove that the value of
petitioners’ assets exceeded their liabilities as of the
calculation date of April 26, 2001. The record shows that
petitioners had $210,764 in assets with known values, and
respondent concedes that petitioner had $213,120 in liabilities
on the calculation date. Respondent claims that petitioners
failed to introduce evidence with respect to the values of
several of their assets and therefore failed to prove that they
were insolvent. However, the burden of proof is on respondent.
Therefore, respondent had the burden to produce evidence that
petitioners were not insolvent. Respondent has not done so.
Petitioners argue that under Illinois State law they were
still personally liable for several of their mortgage debts as of
the calculation date of April 26, 2001, because the foreclosure
sales that took place with respect to those debts had not yet
been approved by the Illinois State court. See, e.g., Citicorp
Sav. v. First Chicago Trust Co., 645 N.E.2d 1038, 1045 (Ill. App.
Ct. 1995); 27A Ill. Law and Practice, Mortgages, sec. 87 (2005)
(quoting Morgan v. Sherwood, 53 Ill. 171 (1870)). Since we have
decided that respondent had the burden of proof in this case and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011