Palos Bank and Trust Company v. Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board
42 N.E.3d 40
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Palos Bank appealed PTAB decisions denying assessment changes for tax years 2008–2010 and filed three circuit-court complaints for administrative review within 35 days.
- Each complaint named both the PTAB and the Cook County Board of Review (Board) as defendants, but the summonses certified mailing only to the PTAB and the Cook County State’s Attorney, not to the Board.
- The PTAB appeared in all cases; the Board appeared only in the 2010 (09) case and moved to dismiss based on improper service and Palos’ failure to file an affidavit with defendants’ last known addresses as required by the Administrative Review Law (Act).
- The three cases were consolidated; the circuit court dismissed the consolidated action for failure to strictly comply with the Act’s service and affidavit requirements.
- Palos appealed, arguing (1) substantial compliance/good-faith effort should excuse the service defects, and (2) the Board waived defects by appearing/seeking relief; the appellate court affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service requirements of the Administrative Review Law may be excused for substantial compliance/good-faith error | Palos: Good-faith efforts and substantial compliance should excuse service defects | Defendants: Act requires strict compliance; defects mandate dismissal | Court: Strict compliance required; good-faith exception applies only for errors beyond plaintiff's control; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether failure to file affidavit designating defendants’ last known addresses is excusable | Palos: Omitted affidavit was a minor/technical defect | Defendants: Statutory requirement is mandatory and nonwaivable | Court: Requirement is mandatory; omission supports dismissal |
| Whether Board waived objection to service by appearing or seeking relief | Palos: Board waived objections by participating in consolidated proceedings | Defendants: Board did not seek substantive relief; Act’s service rules cannot be waived | Court: Board did not seek substantive relief; service requirements nonwaivable; waiver argument fails |
| Whether dismissal under section 2-619 review standard was proper | Palos: Dismissal was improper given partial compliance | Defendants: Section 2-619 dismissal appropriate for statutory noncompliance | Court: Section 2-619 dismissal reviewed de novo and affirmed based on statutory noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Barber v. American Airlines, 241 Ill. 2d 450 (2011) (standard of review for section 2-619 dismissals)
- Gilty v. Village of Oak Park Board of Fire & Police Commissioners, 218 Ill. App. 3d 1078 (1991) (joinder and service requirements under Act are mandatory and nonwaivable)
- Gunther v. Illinois Civil Service Comm’n, 344 Ill. App. 3d 912 (2003) (strict compliance required; substantial compliance insufficient when plaintiff failed to serve agency)
- Burns v. Department of Employment Security, 342 Ill. App. 3d 780 (2003) (good-faith exception applies where errors beyond plaintiff’s control, e.g., clerk’s office mistakes)
- Azim v. Department of Central Management Services, 164 Ill. App. 3d 298 (1987) (clerk’s office errors can justify excusing statutory defects)
- Cox v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners of the City of Danville, 96 Ill. 2d 399 (1983) (Act’s service provisions are mandatory though not jurisdictional)