2022 IL App (3d) 210260
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background:
- Rick Reynolds owns mobile homes and a mobile-home park within the Village of Creve Coeur.
- Village Ordinance No. 634 (2006) required annual registration (initially $5) for rented residential buildings, including mobile homes; Ordinance No. 634A (2013) raised the fee to $25 and authorized inspections for compliance with various local ordinances (building, nuisance, sewer, garbage, littering, etc.).
- Reynolds paid the $25 fee under protest and sued for declaratory relief, alleging (1) the Village lacked authority to enact the ordinance, (2) federal and state law preempted Ordinance No. 634A, and (3) the fee was an impermissible tax.
- The Village moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-615 and 2-619(a)(9); the trial court dismissed Counts I and II and ultimately (by agreed order) dismissed Count III with prejudice.
- On appeal Reynolds limited his challenge to Count II (preemption); the appellate court affirmed dismissal, holding the fee is not preempted, inspection/enforcement preemption claims were not ripe, and a vagueness argument was forfeited.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal preemption of $25 registration fee | Act (Nat'l Manufactured Housing Construction & Safety Standards Act) preempts any municipal regulation affecting mobile homes, so fee is invalid | Fee is purely a registration/administrative charge, not a construction or safety standard | Fee is not preempted (Act preempts only construction/safety standards) |
| Federal preemption of inspection/enforcement authority | HUD standards preempt Village inspections/enforcement as they affect mobile homes | No actual conflict shown; plaintiff cited no specific ordinance provisions that contradict HUD standards | Claim not ripe; no actual controversy because Village never inspected/enforced against Reynolds; speculative complaint dismissed |
| Vagueness/unconstitutionality of 634A (raised on appeal) | Ordinance language is too vague to be enforceable | Argument was not raised below, so forfeited | Forfeited; appellate court declined to consider it |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422 (standard for section 2-615 dismissal)
- City of Chicago v. Morales, 177 Ill. 2d 440 (presumption of constitutionality in statutory/ordinance construction)
- Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill. 2d 367 (requirements for an actual justiciable controversy in declaratory relief)
- MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. County of Yolo, 477 U.S. 340 (court cannot judge how far a regulation goes without concrete facts)
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (interpretation of express preemption clauses)
- CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (focus on plain language of preemption clause)
- Georgia Manufactured Housing Ass'n v. Spalding County, 148 F.3d 1304 (Act preempts state/local construction and safety standards affecting manufactured housing)