In re Application of County Treasurer & ex officio County Collector
2017 IL App (4th) 170003
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Community Enrichment Group (plaintiff) purchased 2010 property taxes for 1505 N. Neil St. (certificate No. 583); redemption expired and owner did not redeem.
- To obtain a tax deed plaintiff paid taxes for 2011–2014 and also had to redeem any tax sales occurring after its purchase per 35 ILCS 200/22-40(a).
- After plaintiff’s purchase, an earlier purchaser (Vista) successfully obtained a judicial sale-in-error for 2008 taxes; the county refunded Vista and the 2008 taxes became delinquent again and were resold to a third purchaser.
- Plaintiff redeemed that subsequent 2008 sale (paying $188,085.12 in penalties/interest), paid 2011–2014 taxes, obtained and recorded a tax deed, then sought a court declaration of sale-in-error/merger and a refund of the $188,085.12.
- Trial court granted plaintiff’s motion on equitable/public-policy grounds; county treasurer (defendant) appealed. Appellate court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff could obtain a sale-in-error refund after obtaining and recording a tax deed | Plaintiff argued §22-40(b) supports merger of prior-year liens into plaintiff’s title and authorizes refund of amounts paid to redeem a subsequent sale | Defendant argued §22-40(a) requires redemption of all subsequent sales before issuance of a tax deed, and §21-310 refund procedure does not apply to plaintiff | Court held plaintiff cannot obtain a refund under §21-310 or §22-40(b) after obtaining a tax deed; reversed trial court |
| Whether §21-310(a)(1)/(d) applied to plaintiff’s motion for sale-in-error/refund | Plaintiff invoked §21-310 as authority for sale-in-error/refund | Defendant said only county collector, the owner of the relevant certificate, or a municipality may seek sale-in-error refund; plaintiff did not qualify | Court held §21-310 inapplicable because plaintiff was not the owner of the certificate subject to the sale-in-error refund and cannot both keep title and obtain a refund that cancels the certificate |
| Whether §22-40(b) implies a right to refund amounts paid to redeem subsequent sales | Plaintiff contended the merger provision should lead to reimbursement for unforeseeable, burdensome redemptions | Defendant relied on §22-40(a)’s plain language requiring redemption of all subsequent sales and argued §22-40(b) provides only merger protection for a tax deed grantee after deed issuance/recording (not a refund) | Court held §22-40(b) contains no refund provision; statutes must be strictly construed and merger occurs only after deed issuance, so no implied refund |
| Whether Elzey is distinguishable and supports plaintiff | Plaintiff/trial court attempted to distinguish Elzey (scavenger sales) and relied on equity/public policy | Defendant relied on Elzey to show merger has no effect until after deed issuance and that petitioners must redeem subsequent sales before deed | Court followed Elzey’s reasoning: merger cannot operate to refund a redemption paid to obtain a deed; Elzey not meaningfully distinguishable |
Key Cases Cited
- American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. County of Cook, 136 Ill. 2d 334 (1990) (standard of review for statutory interpretation is de novo)
- Van’s Material Co. v. Department of Revenue, 131 Ill. 2d 196 (1989) (taxing statutes are strictly construed; language not extended by implication)
- In re Application of the County Treasurer & ex officio County Collector, 373 Ill. App. 3d 679 (2007) (discusses nature of tax sale certificates and tax deed proceedings)
- In re Application of the County Treasurer & ex officio County Collector of Cook County (Elzey), 389 Ill. App. 3d 398 (2009) (merger under §22-40(b) has no effect until tax deed is issued; petitioner must redeem subsequent sales before deed)
- Thornton, Ltd. v. Rosewell, 72 Ill. 2d 399 (1978) (equitable grounds may support setting aside a tax sale)
- Lacey v. Village of Palatine, 232 Ill. 2d 349 (2009) (statutory interpretation principles)