Lavite v. Dunstan
58 N.E.3d 1270
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Bradley A. Lavite, superintendent of the Madison County Veterans Assistance Commission (VAC), sued county officials seeking mandamus to: (1) regain access to the VAC office in the county administration building; (2) compel payment of his superintendent salary; and (3) compel payment of attorney fees approved by the VAC.
- The VAC is statutorily created under the Military Veterans Assistance Act; the superintendent is vested with the commission’s executive powers and the county must provide office space and fund approved VAC budgets.
- Lavite alleged he was barred from entering the administration building by County Administrator Joseph Parente after a medical hospitalization; Parente’s written notice forbade Lavite entry but gave no reason in the letter.
- The County had previously appropriated a budget (including VAC employee compensation and funds) for the VAC for fiscal year 2015; VAC adopted a resolution retaining counsel for Lavite and submitted attorney invoices.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under sections 2-615 and 2-619 (combined motion noncompliant with 2-619.1). The trial court dismissed all three counts with prejudice; Lavite appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue in mandamus to regain office access | Lavite, as elected superintendent with statutory executive authority, may bring mandamus on VAC’s behalf | Lavite lacked standing; VAC (or others) were necessary parties | Court: Lavite had standing; VAC not a necessary party and dismissal for nonjoinder was erroneous |
| Whether mandamus improper because County acted discretionarily by denying access | Lavite pleaded a statutory right to access office and alleged denial; mandamus appropriate to compel statutory duties | County claimed Parente’s denial was discretionary (safety/security) so mandamus unavailable | Court: dismissal on discretionary-act ground premature; factual record inadequate to support 2-619 dismissal; remand to deny motion on count I |
| Salary payment claim (mandamus to process payroll) | Lavite sought an order compelling payroll processing for his salary | County argued payroll processing depends on VAC forwarding proper payroll request and sufficient VAC funds; County will not refuse to process payroll | Court: claim premature/moot; affirmed dismissal of count II (no present concrete controversy) |
| Payment of attorney fees from VAC funds and applicability of county procurement rules | Lavite asserted VAC-resolution authorized counsel and VAC-appropriated funds must pay counsel; County cannot impose purchasing ordinances to deny payment | County argued VAC must comply with county purchasing/approval procedures and lacked standing to demand payment | Court: Lavite had standing; County cannot impose its ordinances to override VAC appropriation for attorney fees; dismissal of count III reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Makowicz v. County of Macon, 78 Ill. 2d 308 (Illinois 1980) (VAC superintendent has authority under Act; VAC employees are not county employees)
- Ickes v. Board of Supervisors, 415 Ill. 557 (Illinois 1953) (superintendent may seek mandamus to compel county appropriations under the Act)
- Veterans Assistance Comm’n v. County Board, 274 Ill. App. 3d 32 (Ill. App. 1995) (county board may not use its ordinances to unilaterally alter VAC benefit or salary levels)
- Hazen v. County of Peoria, 138 Ill. App. 3d 836 (Ill. App. 1985) (mandamus unavailable where contested act is discretionary and facts at hearing supported that conclusion)
- Noyola v. Board of Education, 179 Ill. 2d 121 (Illinois 1997) (mandamus requires a clear right, clear duty, and clear authority to perform the act sought)
- Kanerva v. Weems, 2014 IL 115811 (Illinois 2014) (section 2-615 dismissal standard: accept well-pleaded facts as true; dismissal only when no set of facts could entitle plaintiff to relief)