Harvest Church of Our Lord v. The City East St. Louis, Illinois
943 N.E.2d 1230
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Harvest Church filed suit against the City of East St. Louis for wrongful demolition under Municipal Code 1-4-7; demolition occurred before January 15, 2005; the complaint sought damages and recovery of proceeds from property sale; the City moved for summary judgment arguing 8-101(a) one-year limit applies; the circuit court denied summary judgment and later certified three questions under Rule 308; the appellate court held that 8-101(a) does not bar the action and certified the questions with a remand.
- The plaintiff argued the 1-4-7 action is exempt from the Tort Immunity Act, thus not subject to 8-101(a), and that a five-year Civil Procedure 13-205 period applies for damages to property.
- The City contended 8-101(a) applies despite the 1-4-7 exemption because it governs filing time, not liability, and that Cooper/McClintock control to require notice and bar.
- Raintree Homes, Inc. v. Village of Long Grove held that actions seeking relief other than damages are excluded from the Act, and Raintree was used to treat 1-4-7 actions as excluded here.
- The court ultimately concluded that 8-101(a) does not apply to 1-4-7 claims and that 2-101(e) excludes the action from the Act, allowing the claim to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 8-101(a) apply to 1-4-7 wrongful-demolition claims? | Harvest argues 1-4-7 claims are exempt from 8-101(a). | City argues 8-101(a) still governs timing. | No, 8-101(a) does not apply. |
| Does 2-101(e) exclude the 1-4-7 action from the Tort Immunity Act's time limits? | Harvest relies on 2-101(e) excluding 1-4-7 actions. | City argues exemptions do not alter 8-101 timing. | Yes, 2-101(e) excludes the action from 8-101. |
| Is the action barred by any one-year limit after applying exemptions? | Not barred due to exclusion. | Barred if 8-101 applies. | No; not barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Raintree Homes, Inc. v. Village of Long Grove, 209 Ill. 2d 248 (2004) (exclusion from Tort Immunity Act permits relief beyond damages)
- Paszkowski v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, 213 Ill. 2d 1 (2004) (legislative intent governs statute interpretations when possible)
- Ferguson v. McKenzie, 202 Ill. 2d 304 (2001) (interpretation yields legislative intent; traditional rules yield)
- Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit District No. 302, 18 Ill. 2d 11 (1959) (abolition of sovereign immunity; foundation for immunity framework)
- Zimmerman v. Village of Skokie, 183 Ill. 2d 30 (1998) (discusses Tort Immunity Act precedents and scope)
- Cooper v. Bi-State Development Agency, 158 Ill. App. 3d 19 (1987) (cooper reasoning on section 2-101 timing versus notice; superseded by Raintree)