People Ex Rel. Alvarez v. Price
948 N.E.2d 174
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- In May 2007, Price held offices as Harvey alderman (sixth ward), Harvey School District 152 board member, and Harvey Park District commissioner, each four-year terms.
- In May 2009, Price also became Harvey library district board member (six-year term).
- In March 2010, John Doe filed a quo warranto petition seeking Price's removal from the park district commissioner office as incompatible with being an alderman.
- April 2010, Doe amended the petition with Brenda L. Thompson; the State sought leave to intervene and amend to correct pleading deficiencies (standing and name in the suit).
- May 2010, the circuit court granted the State leave to intervene and dismissed Doe's petition with prejudice; the State filed its amended complaint the same day.
- June 2010, Price moved to dismiss the State's amended complaint under 2-615 for failure to allege incompatibility; the court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Price's offices are incompatible | State argued office pairings involve conflicting duties and statutory relationships creating incompatibility. | Price contends no incompatibility and that no specific recusal or conflicting duty was shown. | Yes; the offices are incompatible due to potential conflicts from statutory relationships and duties. |
| Whether the State properly intervened | Intervention is proper to correct pleading deficiencies and to avoid multiple suits. | Intervention was improper because Doe and Thompson lacked standing to sue for the State. | Yes; the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in granting intervention. |
| Whether the State's amended complaint was properly denied under section 2-615 | Amended complaint adequately states incompatibility; pleading standards are flexible in quo warranto. | The pleading failed to allege incompatibility with specificity and was improperly treated as viable. | Yes; denial of 2-615 motion was proper; the amended complaint sufficed to state incompatibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Smith v. Brown, 356 Ill.App.3d 1096 (Ill. App. 2005) (incompatibility analyzed via potential conflicts and duties)
- Claar v. City of Elgin, 293 Ill.App.3d 211 (Ill. App. 1997) (incompatibility based on duties and relationship of offices)
- People ex rel. Myers v. Haas, 145 Ill.App. 283 (Ill. App. 1908) (early framing of incompatibility principles)
- People ex rel. Barsanti v. Scarpelli, 371 Ill.App.3d 226 (Ill. App. 2007) (cases permitting incompatibility analysis beyond actual conflicts)
- Swailes v. People, 101 Ill.2d 458 (Ill. 1984) (recognizes potential conflicts with dual offices based on future conflict)
- Ray v. Lewistown Comm. High Sch., 388 Ill. 78 (Ill. 1944) (quo warranto pleading doctrine: burden on defendant to show authority)
- Daley v. Datacom Systems Corp., 176 Ill.App.3d 697 (Ill. App. 1988) (quo warranto pleading framework; general allegations allowed)
- DuPage Forklift Serv., Inc. v. Material Handling Servs., Inc., 195 Ill.2d 71 (Ill. 2001) (interlocutory review of summary-dismissal interplay)
- People ex rel. Phelps v. Kerstein, 413 Ill. 333 (Ill. 1952) (public interest and laches considerations in quo warranto)
- People ex rel. Barsanti v. Scarpelli, 371 Ill.App.3d 226 (Ill. App. 2007) (supports incompatibility analysis for potential duties)
- Arangold Corp. v. Zehnder, 204 Ill.2d 142 (Ill. 2003) (summary judgment de novo standard; case law context)