General Motors Corp. v. Pappas
242 Ill. 2d 163
| Ill. | 2011Background
- This case asks whether plaintiffs are entitled to judgment interest under 735 ILCS 5/2-1303 on a fixed sum of outstanding interest owed under 35 ILCS 200/23-20 after full principal refunds were issued under 23-20.
- Amendment Pub. Act 94-558 (eff. Jan. 1, 2006) changed 23-20 interest from a flat 5% to the lesser of 5% or CPI, prospectively.
- Consolidated tax valuation and tax rate objection cases involved GM, SBC, Newcastle Properties, LLC, and Yetto taxpayers in Cook County.
- Trial court and appellate courts awarded CPI-based interest for period after 2005 and 5% interest for pre-2006 period; the collector appealed on multiple fronts.
- Issue includes whether circuit court retained jurisdiction to award post-appeal judgment interest to SBC/Newcastle, whether the collector forfeited rights by not raising the issue earlier, and whether GM is entitled to 2-1303 judgment interest on a fixed amount after refunds were issued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court retained jurisdiction to award judgment interest after notices of appeal. | SBC/Newcastle: jurisdiction existed to award post-appeal interest. | Collector: Sears Holdings principle shows lack of jurisdiction after appeal. | Yes; circuit court had jurisdiction to award judgment interest after notices of appeal. |
| Whether appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review judgment interest awards for SBC/Newcastle due to inadequate notices of appeal. | Collector’s notices did not specify judgment interest issue. | Docketing statement referenced issue; insufficient notices defeated appellate review. | Appellate court lacked jurisdiction over SBC/Newcastle judgment interest, so those awards are vacated; GM and Yetto are unaffected. |
| Whether judgment interest under 2-1303 can apply to the fixed amount of interest stayed pending appeal after full refunds. | Section 2-1303 allows interest on fixed judgments stayed pending appeal. | 23-20 controls interest until full refund; post-refund interest under 2-1303 improper. | Judgment interest under 2-1303 is proper on the fixed amount of interest owed after refunds, not compound; affirmed for Yetto and GM partial relief on remand. |
| Whether GM's cross-appeal on 5% vs CPI should be resolved prospectively and whether GM may recover 5% for entire period. | GM entitled to 5% for entire period under prior law. | Amendment applies prospectively; no right to past rate post-effective date; no compound interest. | Amendment prospective; GM entitled to 5% only for period before Jan 1, 2006; CPI thereafter. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sears Holdings Corp. v. Pappas, 391 Ill.App.3d 147 (1st Dist. 2009) (review of judgment interest after notice of appeal; stay vs. judgment-amount modification; lack of appellate jurisdiction for interest awards)
- Madison Two Associates v. Pappas, 227 Ill.2d 474 (2008) (procedural rules when Code silent; article II governs property tax objection cases)
- Beelman Trucking v. Illinois Workers' Comp. Comm'n, 233 Ill.2d 364 (2009) (statutory interpretation; legislative intent and ordinary meaning)
- SHELL Oil Co. v. Department of Revenue, 95 Ill.2d 541 (1983) (statutory construction; interest on tax refunds as creature of statute)
- Noe v. City of Chicago, 56 Ill.2d 346 (1974) (prospective application of new interest rate where rights accrued; Noe rule)