Gwozdz v. Board of Education of Park Ridge-Niles School District No. 64, 189 N.E.3d 487

M.G., a seventh grader, was enrolled at Emerson Middle School in Park Ridge-Niles School District No. 64 for 2017–18; school records listed her family address as 7544 W. Oakton St., Apt. 2, Niles (a one‑bedroom above plaintiffs’ commercial flower business).
The District’s CLEAR software flagged a Des Plaines property the family owned; surveillance by a private investigator documented the family (including M.G.) entering and remaining overnight at the Des Plaines home on multiple dates, and no cars at the Niles building during spot checks.
Plaintiffs produced a lease (from their LLC), mail, utility and business documents, a driver’s license, vaccination records, vehicle registrations, and photos to support in‑district residency; they testified the apartment was their primary residence and M.G. slept there except for occasional stays elsewhere.
The District notified plaintiffs it found M.G. nonresident and scheduled a hearing per 105 ILCS 5/10‑20.12b(c); a hearing officer held a contested hearing, found plaintiffs’ testimony thin and not credible, and concluded the family’s primary base was Des Plaines.
The Board adopted the hearing officer’s decision; the regional superintendent affirmed; the circuit court affirmed on certiorari review, and plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether M.G. was a district resident for 2017–18	Plaintiffs: M.G. lived primarily at the Niles apartment (lease, mail, IDs, school proximity) and intended Niles as home base	District: Combination of CLEAR reports, suspect lease/rent checks, prior enrollment in Des Plaines school, and investigator surveillance show primary residence is Des Plaines	Court affirmed: substantial competent evidence supports finding M.G. was nonresident (Des Plaines); not clearly erroneous
Whether Board relied on insufficient or immaterial facts (e.g., CLEAR, surveillance)	Plaintiffs: Board/hearing officer relied on improper/insufficient evidence and ignored plaintiffs’ intent	District: Evidence was voluminous and persuasive when considered together; factors properly weighed	Court held the evidence was competent; weighing of credibility and combined factors was for the Board/hearing officer and not reversible
Whether the Board’s process was procedurally unfair (short notice, limited time)	Plaintiffs: They had only a few days to prepare after surprising accusations	District: Process complied with statutory timing and disclosure requirements under 105 ILCS 5/10‑20.12b(c)	Court held procedure complied with statute (notice, hearing window, 3‑day disclosure rule); no procedural defect shown

Ashley v. Board of Education, 275 Ill. 274 (1916) (school‑residency focuses on dwelling and care, not parental domicile; temporary residence suffices if not solely for school attendance)
Connelly v. Gibbs, 112 Ill. App. 3d 257 (1983) (intent is critical; actions weigh more than declarations when determining residence for school purposes)
Miller v. Police Board, 38 Ill. App. 3d 894 (1976) (residence requires physical presence and intent to make location a home)
Mina v. Board of Education for Homewood‑Flossmoor, 348 Ill. App. 3d 264 (2004) (intent and acts govern school residency; declarations given less weight)
Beggs v. Board of Education of Murphysboro Community Unit School District No. 186, 2016 IL 120236 (2016) (administrative fact findings are prima facie true on review)
Exelon Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 234 Ill. 2d 266 (2009) (administrative factual findings reversed only if against the manifest weight of the evidence)
Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (2008) (standard for manifest weight review: opposite conclusion must be clearly evident)
AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380 (2001) (mixed questions of law and fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard)