In re Application of the County Treasurer & ex officio County Collector
161 N.E.3d 283
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- At the 2015 Cook County tax sale a purchaser (GAN C, LLC, later assigned to petitioner Eeservices, Inc.) bought nearly $1.4 million in delinquent taxes on a Calumet City shopping center.
- The Cook County Assessor’s online description listed the property on “Dolton Avenue” rather than the correct “Dolton Road.”
- Eeservices petitioned the circuit court to declare the sale a "sale in error" under section 21‑310(a)(5) of the Illinois Property Tax Code (assessor or other county official made an error).
- The trial court initially granted relief but on reconsideration denied the petition, finding no Dolton Avenue exists, the mistake would not have misled anyone, and it did not affect substantial ownership rights.
- On appeal the court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and affirmed: the assessor’s scrivener’s error on the website did not warrant vacatur because it did not affect the tax‑sale process or the buyer’s substantial rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the assessor’s website misdescription ("Dolton Avenue" v. "Dolton Road") is a "sale in error" under 21‑310(a)(5) | Any error by an assessor or county official qualifies; plain statutory text requires relief | Error must be material to the tax‑sale process or affect substantial ownership rights; assessor website not part of sale process | Court: No. Website scrivener error insufficient; not a sale in error |
| Proper scope of § 21‑310(a)(5): plain‑text bright‑line vs. contextual, purposive reading | Read § 21‑310(a)(5) in isolation; bright‑line rule for any county error | Read § 21‑310 in context and purpose; avoid absurd results; protect buyers' investments | Court: Read in context; error must implicate tax sale process or buyer’s substantial rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Carmichael v. Laborers’ & Retirement Board Employees’ Annuity & Benefit Fund, 2018 IL 122793 (Ill. 2018) (statutory interpretation: give effect to legislative intent and plain language)
- Town & Country Utilities, Inc. v. Illinois Pollution Control Board, 225 Ill. 2d 103 (Ill. 2007) (court may not read exceptions into plain statutory language)
- Bowman v. Ottney, 2015 IL 119000 (Ill. 2015) (consider law’s purpose and consequences in interpretation)
- In re Application of the County Collector for Judgment of Sale Against Lands & Lots Returned Delinquent for Nonpayment of General Taxes for the Year 1979 & Prior Years, 169 Ill. App. 3d 180 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988) (sale‑in‑error requires errors that affect substantial rights of ownership)
- La Salle National Bank v. Hoffman, 1 Ill. App. 3d 470 (Ill. App. Ct. 1971) (§ 21‑310 protects tax buyers from losses caused by county officer failures)
- People ex rel. Republican‑Reporter Corp. v. Holmes, 98 Ill. App. 2d 11 (Ill. App. Ct. 1968) (publication of assessment roll is to notify taxpayers, not to guide tax‑sale officers)