2014 IL App (1st) 121966
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Betty Dumas and Jerome Casimir (pro se) owned property at 3620 S. Calumet Ave.; a 2007 fire left the lot vacant and they dispute assessed values/taxes for 2007–2011.
- They filed a petition (Jan. 20, 2012) seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the clerk to recompute tax bills and a declaratory judgment that assessments/charges were unlawful; alleged assessor failed to act on a Jan. 13, 2011 application for a certificate of error.
- Plaintiffs claimed they did not receive tax bills or sale notices for certain years and that certificate-of-error application got no response.
- Defendants (Cook County treasurer, clerk, assessor) moved to dismiss under Ill. Code Civ. P. §§ 2-615 and 2-619 for failure to state a claim and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The circuit court dismissed with prejudice; plaintiffs appealed. The appellate court affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs stated a mandamus claim requiring assessor to act on certificate-of-error application | Berrios had a duty to act; failure to respond supports mandamus | Assessor’s issuance of a certificate of error is discretionary and not mandamus-compellable | Denied — plaintiffs failed to show a clear, nondiscretionary duty; mandamus unavailable |
| Whether circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction to grant relief without exhausting administrative remedies | Court could hear because assessments were unlawful and assessor failed to act | Plaintiffs failed to exhaust statutory administrative remedies and did not allege tax was unauthorized or property tax-exempt | Denied — plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies and did not allege an "unauthorized by law" or exemption claim; court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was erroneous and whether leave to amend should have been allowed | Section 14-109 permits amendment if wrong remedy sought; plaintiffs should get leave to amend | Plaintiffs did not move to amend; pleadings lacked facts to establish jurisdiction so amendment could not cure defect | Denied — section 14-109 inapplicable because pleading lacked sufficient facts; amendment could not remedy jurisdictional defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Noyola v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 179 Ill. 2d 121 (1997) (mandamus may compel a public official to comply with statutory duties when requirements for writ are met)
- Millennium Park Joint Venture, LCC v. Houlihan, 241 Ill. 2d 281 (2010) (taxpayer must exhaust statutory administrative remedies before circuit court unless tax is unauthorized or property is tax-exempt)
- Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422 (2006) (standards for dismissal under section 2-615; accept well-pleaded facts and dismiss only where no set of facts would entitle plaintiff to relief)
- Hadley v. Ryan, 345 Ill. App. 3d 297 (2003) (mandamus cannot compel actions that require official discretion; denial of leave to amend proper when amendment would not cure defects)
- Ball v. County of Cook, 385 Ill. App. 3d 103 (2008) (certificate-of-error procedure is summary and does not create taxpayer’s right to participate)
- Chicago Sheraton Corp. v. Zaban, 71 Ill. 2d 85 (1978) (certificate-of-error procedure intended as an expeditious summary process without taxpayer participation)
- Givot v. Orr, 321 Ill. App. 3d 78 (2001) (elements plaintiff must show to obtain mandamus: clear right to relief, clear duty, and authority to comply)