Invenergy Nelson, LLC v. Rock Falls Township High School District No. 301
168 N.E.3d 711
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- In 2000 Rock Falls Township High School District adopted a "Resolution Granting Real Estate Tax Abatement" (the 2000 Resolution) that offered a multi‑year, tiered abatement to "LSP‑Nelson Energy" for new improvements on a 62‑acre parcel; a certified copy was filed with the county clerk.
- LSP‑Nelson Energy went bankrupt before completing the project; Invenergy purchased the parcel in 2004, later built a power plant, and 2016 was the first full year of operation.
- In 2017 Invenergy sought to activate the 2000 abatement; the Board passed a 2017 Resolution directing the county collector not to apply the abatement and stated the 2000 Resolution had expired and been superseded by a 2007 board policy.
- Invenergy sued (tax objection and declaratory relief), alleging the 2000 Resolution "ran with the land," that the Board lacked authority to deny the abatement, and that the Board failed to give proper Open Meetings Act notice; Invenergy paid 2016 taxes and sought refunds and entitlement for 2017–2020.
- The Board moved to dismiss under section 2‑615; the trial court dismissed count I and ultimately entered final judgment dismissing both counts. On appeal the court affirmed, holding the 2000 Resolution did not run with the land.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2000 Resolution "ran with the land" so Invenergy (a successor owner) could enforce it | The resolution focuses on the property and contains no user restriction, so its benefits run with the land and passed to Invenergy | The resolution was expressly granted to "LSP‑Nelson Energy" and contains no language (e.g., successors/assigns) showing it was intended to run with the land | Held: The resolution did not run with the land; its plain language names LSP‑Nelson and does not indicate transferability to successors |
| Whether the complaint survived a section 2‑615 motion to dismiss given the attached resolution | The complaint sufficiently alleged the resolution ran with the land and raised factual disputes (including notice/Oma) precluding dismissal | The attached 2000 Resolution controls and contradicts the complaint; no factual allegations show transfer or recording with the deed | Held: Dismissal proper; exhibits control and complaint lacked allegations to create a fact issue that the resolution ran with the land |
| Whether statutory limits or timing (Tax Code §18‑165 / 10‑year limit) barred Invenergy’s claim | The 10‑year cap governs only the duration of any granted abatement, not when a resolution may be enacted or applied; the triggering assessment occurs after improvements are completed | The Tax Code’s 10‑year limit and the passage of time (project not completed for many years) undermine Invenergy’s right to an abatement under the 2000 Resolution | Held: Appellate court affirmed on the run‑with‑the‑land ground and did not reach the alternative statutory/timing arguments |
| Whether Invenergy pleaded estoppel or Open Meetings Act/notice violations sufficient to avoid dismissal | Invenergy alleged lack of proper notice for the 2017 board meeting and argued application of later policy was arbitrary and capricious given its investment | Board argued the 2007 policy governed and Invenergy failed to apply under that policy; complaint contained no adequate estoppel facts or procedural defects to invalidate board action | Held: Complaint failed to plead sufficient estoppel or other factual allegations to avoid dismissal; appellate court affirmed without reaching all alternative grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Borowiec v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 209 Ill. 2d 376 (2004) (section 2‑615 motion tests legal sufficiency of complaint; pleadings viewed in plaintiff's favor)
- Jarvis v. South Oak Dodge, Inc., 201 Ill. 2d 81 (2002) (on review, allegations are taken in light most favorable to plaintiff)
- Pooh‑Bah Enterprises, Inc. v. County of Cook, 232 Ill. 2d 463 (2009) (dismiss only if no set of facts could entitle plaintiff to relief)
- U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Clark, 216 Ill. 2d 334 (2005) (de novo review of dismissal under section 2‑615)
- Stoll v. United Way of Champaign County, Ill., Inc., 378 Ill. App. 3d 1048 (2008) (appellate court may affirm on any record‑supported basis)
- Forest Preserve Dist. of Du Page County v. Dep’t of Rev., 266 Ill. App. 3d 264 (1994) (tax exemptions and similar tax relief are strictly construed in favor of taxation)
- Mid‑American Growers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Rev., 143 Ill. App. 3d 600 (1986) (tax structure presumes all taxable property should bear its fair share of government costs)
- Rosewood Corp. v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 38 Ill. 2d 29 (1967) (notice to the purchaser may be required to bind subsequent owners to prior instruments)