Bueker v. Madison County Illinois
2016 IL 120024
| Ill. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Scott Bueker et al.) sued individually and as a putative class, alleging a scheme by former Madison County Treasurer/Collector Fred Bathon to inflate interest owed by delinquent taxpayers to purchasers of tax debt.
- Plaintiffs sued various defendants and sued RLI Insurance Company as the surety on Bathon’s statutorily required public official bond for county treasurer/collector.
- The bond named Bathon as principal and (erroneously) "Madison County Government" as obligee; statutory bond forms require the obligee be "the People of the State of Illinois."
- RLI moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ direct claim on the bond under section 2-615, arguing private citizens lack standing to sue on a statutory public official bond that runs to the People.
- The circuit court granted dismissal with prejudice; the appellate court affirmed; the Illinois Supreme Court granted leave and affirmed, holding private citizens cannot directly sue on the statutory bond at issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether private citizens may bring a direct action on a statutorily mandated county treasurer/collector bond that names the People of the State of Illinois as obligee | Private citizens harmed by the official’s misconduct may sue directly on the bond for their damages | Only the named obligee (the People/body politic) may sue on the statutory official bond unless the statute expressly allows private suits | Held: Private citizens are precluded; plaintiffs lack standing to sue RLI directly on the bond |
| Whether historical/common-law cases (e.g., Dodd, Harper) support private suits on such bonds | Reliance on Dodd and other older cases to argue longstanding authority for private direct suits | Those cases involved suits by the body politic (or "for the use of" injured parties) or different bond statutes and do not support direct private suits here | Held: Those cases are inapposite; they do not establish a private right to sue on this bond |
| Whether the bond’s mistaken naming of "Madison County Government" as obligee alters parties’ rights | Plaintiffs argued the bond language should be read as written and allow claims | Court: statutory bond language controls, and the correct obligee (the People) is read into the bond by operation of law | Held: Statutory obligee (People) is read into the bond; mistake does not create private rights |
| Whether any statutory provisions permit private suits on related collector/treasurer bonds | Plaintiffs claimed statutes or legislative intent allow private suits | Defense: Statutes show legislature knows how to authorize private suits but did not do so here (contrasted with 35 ILCS 200/20-155) | Held: Because the statutes for treasurer/collector bonds lack express authorizing language, private suits are not permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States ex rel. Midland Loan Finance Co. v. National Surety Corp., 309 U.S. 165 (1940) (whether third parties may sue on an official bond depends on legislative intent)
- Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422 (2006) (standard of review and scope of a section 2-615 motion)
- Rosewood Corp. v. Transamerica Insurance Co., 57 Ill. 2d 247 (1974) (judicial construction of a bond refers to the controlling bond statute; omitted statutory provisions are read into the bond)
- Paszkowski v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, 213 Ill. 2d 1 (2004) (definition of “body politic” / statutory interpretation principles)
- Cowper v. Nyberg, 2015 IL 117811 (2015) (recognition that court clerks may be liable for breaches of ministerial duties; does not authorize private direct suits on these statutory bonds)