Mulry v. Berrios
2017 IL App (1st) 152563
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Barbara Mulry inherited 9135 S. Springfield (rental property) in 2001 and has lived at 9139 S. Springfield (her residence) for decades; she never lived at the inherited property.
- Cook County Assessor notified Mulry in 2014 that homestead exemptions were erroneously taken for tax years 2010–2012 on both properties and sought repayment of taxes, 10% annual interest, penalties, and a lien. Total claimed: $4,188.60.
- Mulry contested the assessor’s notice at an administrative hearing; the assessor admitted computer printouts showing homestead exemptions on both PINs for the disputed years.
- Mulry argued (1) the 2013 statute governing erroneous homestead exemptions (35 ILCS 200/9-275) cannot be applied to tax years 2010–2012 (impermissible retroactivity and constitutional violations) and (2) the assessor’s computer records lacked adequate foundation.
- The hearing officer found for the State; the circuit court affirmed; the appellate court reviewed the administrative decision and affirmed it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Temporal reach / retroactivity of 35 ILCS 200/9-275 | Mulry: statute effective July 16, 2013 cannot apply to tax years 2010–2012; no express retroactive language. | State: effective date does not limit temporal reach; statute’s text expressly reaches back three collection years. | Statute plainly covers exemptions in "any of the 3 collection years immediately prior to the current collection year"; application to 2010–2012 was permissible and not impermissibly retroactive. |
| Whether application impairs vested rights / Contract Clause | Mulry: retroactive application impairs vested rights (lien/rights). | State: Mulry never had a right to duplicate homestead exemptions; no vested right impaired. | No vested right to simultaneous exemptions existed under prior law; Contract Clause claim fails. |
| Due process / harshness of retroactive effect | Mulry: holding her liable in 2014 for 2010 liabilities is harsh and oppressive. | State: three-year reach is reasonable and shorter than other tax collection/refund periods. | Three-year period is not so harsh/oppressive as to violate substantive due process. |
| Admissibility / foundation for assessor’s computer printouts | Mulry: printouts lacked adequate foundation; relied on outdated computer-printout cases. | State: witness testified records were kept in regular course of business, printed from AS400 at/near the time, meeting business-records foundation. | Accardi’s testimony supplied the required foundation; computer records were admissible and supported the liability finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Will County Collector, 196 Ill. 2d 27 (Illinois Supreme Court) (retroactivity / Landgraf framework)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. Supreme Court) (test for retroactive application of statutes)
- Hayashi v. Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation, 2014 IL 116023 (Ill.) (Statute on Statutes inapplicable where legislature clearly defined temporal reach)
- Mohammad v. Department of Financial & Professional Regulation, 2013 IL App (1st) 122151 (Ill. App. Ct.) (retroactivity analysis)
- Grand Liquor Co. v. Department of Revenue, 67 Ill. 2d 195 (Ill.) (early analysis of foundation for computer records)
- Proviso Township High School District No. 209 v. Hynes, 84 Ill. 2d 229 (Ill.) (definition/limits of homestead exemption)
- First of America Bank, Rockford, N.A. v. Netsch, 166 Ill. 2d 165 (Ill.) (definition of retroactive law as impairing vested rights)
- Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Szpara, 2015 IL App (2d) 140331 (Ill. App. Ct.) (business-records hearsay exception / admissibility of electronic records)