BLTREJV3 Chicago, LLC v. Kane County Board of Review
18 N.E.3d 144
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- petitioners BLTREJV3 Chicago, LLC and Five Ten Illinois III, LLC own Kane County properties.
- Aurora Township assessment list published Sept. 4, 2013; filing deadline Oct. 4.
- Petitioners sent 72 tax appeals via FedEx on Oct. 4; Board received Oct. 7.
- Board rejected 71 of 72 as untimely, notifying petitioners Oct. 25 and Oct. 28.
- Petitioners filed declaratory judgment and injunctive relief on Nov. 15; Board moved for judgment on the pleadings.
- Trial court granted Board’s motion; affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mailbox rule applicability to third-party carriers | Petitioners rely on Rules 11-12 and the mailbox rule. | Board rules require USPS filing; mailbox rule not applicable to FedEx. | Mailbox rule not applied; USPS filing required under Board rules. |
| Equitable relief for disparate acceptance of filings | Board accepted one St. Charles filing but rejected 71 Aurora filings. | No due process violation; no showing of arbitrary/unequal treatment. | No equitable relief; judgment on the pleadings affirmed. |
| Board's authority to set filing rules | Board’s rules should mirror Supreme Court Rules 11-12. | Board may set reasonable procedures under Tax Code §9-5. | Board may establish its own filing rules; not required to adopt mailbox rule for third-party carriers. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Aldridge, 179 Ill. 2d 141 (1997) (expressio unius est exclusio alterius governs statutory interpretation)
- Shatku v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2013 IL App (2d) 120412 (2013) (service vs. filing distinction; not filing requirements)
- In re Yamaguchi, 118 Ill. 2d 417 (1987) (board quasi-judicial; unauthorized practice context)
- In re Howard, 188 Ill. 2d 423 (1999) (unauthorized practice of law; not controlling here)
- Baca v. Trejo, 388 Ill. App. 3d 193 (2009) (mailbox rule limitations; USPS emphasis)
- Robidoux v. Oliphant, 201 Ill. 2d 324 (2002) (statutory interpretation; de novo review of law)
- People ex rel. Courshon v. Hirschfield, 43 Ill. App. 3d 432 (1976) (board procedures aligned with Tax Code requirements)
- Segers v. Industrial Comm’n, 191 Ill. 2d 421 (2000) (procedural due process considerations)