Bueker v. Madison County, IL
61 N.E.3d 237
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (owners of Madison County real property with delinquent taxes sold at 2005–2008 tax sales) sued former County Treasurer Fred Bathon, various tax purchasers, Madison County and others alleging a scheme to fix penalty (interest) rates at tax-sale auctions by using a "no trailing bid" simultaneous-bidding practice that produced excessive 12%–18% rates.
- Federal prosecutions resulted in guilty pleas by Bathon and several tax buyers admitting an implicit understanding to bid the statutory maximum (18%).
- Plaintiffs moved for class certification seeking a class of parcels sold at tax sales 2005–2008 with certificate-of-purchase bids of 12% or higher, alleging antitrust, civil conspiracy, money had and received, breach of fiduciary duty, sale in error, and related counts.
- Defendants opposed, arguing individual issues (causation, damages, and statutes of limitations) would predominate because many liens legitimately attracted 18% bids for property-specific reasons and the DOJ concluded parcel-level damage could not be determined without individualized review.
- The circuit court certified the class (liability and damages); on interlocutory appeal the appellate court affirmed certification for liability only, vacated certification as to damages and dismissed class claims against Madison County for sale in error and money had and received, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether numerosity is met | Many parcels (~10,000) were sold; joinder impracticable | — | Numerosity met |
| Whether common questions predominate (class-wide certification) | Existence of conspiracy, method of auctions, campaign contributions and participation are common issues that predominate; damages can be handled later | Individualized injury and damages (parcel-specific bidding economics) predominate and defeat class treatment for damages | Common issues predominate for liability only; certifying class for liability is appropriate, but certifying for damages is an abuse of discretion |
| Whether damages are susceptible to class-wide calculation | Plaintiffs contend individual damages doesn't defeat certification; court can bifurcate liability from damages and use subclasses or ancillary proceedings | DOJ and defendants say damages require parcel-by-parcel subjective analysis; no class-wide methodology provided so individual issues would overwhelm | Plaintiffs failed to present a class-wide damages methodology; damages must be determined individually (class decertified for damages) |
| Whether Madison County is a proper defendant for sale-in-error and money-had-and-received claims included in class | Plaintiffs included Madison County in those counts | Madison County argues statute and practice show only tax purchasers (or collector) may bring sale-in-error and county was merely a pass-through for redemption funds (no unjust benefit) | Class certification vacated as to sale-in-error and money-had-and-received claims against Madison County (those claims cannot be maintained) |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 223 Ill. 2d 441 (Illinois 2006) (class certification improper where individualized proximate-causation and damages issues would consume trial)
- Hall v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 376 Ill. App. 3d 822 (Ill. App. 2007) (individual damages determinations after litigating common liability issues do not necessarily defeat certification)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2013) (plaintiff must show damages are measurable on a class-wide basis; lack of class-wide damages model defeats predominance)
- Baker v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 355 Ill. App. 3d 62 (Ill. App. 2005) (antitrust conspiracies often must be proven by circumstantial inference)
- Purcell & Wardrope Chartered v. Hertz Corp., 175 Ill. App. 3d 1069 (Ill. App. 1988) (court may modify or decertify class later if manageability or adequacy issues arise)