2014 IL App (2d) 130708
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (Sage Information Services and Roger Hurlbert) requested an electronic copy (CD or similar) of Winnebago County’s entire real property assessment record file and sales file under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
- Defendant Brenda Suhr, Winnebago County chief deputy supervisor of assessments, responded that the request was governed by section 9-20 of the Property Tax Code and demanded $6,290.45 (five cents per parcel).
- Plaintiffs sued to compel production in electronic form at a charge no greater than the actual cost of the recording medium and sought attorney fees and costs.
- The trial court granted plaintiffs’ summary judgment, ordering production in electronic format and awarding fees; the court relied on Sage Information Services v. Humm (5th Dist.) interpreting FOIA §6(a).
- This appeal presented the question whether FOIA §6(a) (cost-only for electronic media) or Property Tax Code §9-20 (reasonable fee) governs fees for electronic copies of assessment records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute controls permissible charges for copies of records maintained electronically? | FOIA §6(a) controls; electronic copies limited to actual cost of the recording medium. | Property Tax Code §9-20 controls; allows a reasonable fee (e.g., 5¢ per parcel). | FOIA §6(a) governs electronic records; charge limited to cost of recording medium. |
| Whether §9-20 is an "express" statutory fee applicable to electronic copies under FOIA §6(a) exception | §9-20 does not expressly make paper fees applicable to electronic records; FOIA exception does not apply. | §9-20 implicitly permits fees for electronic records because it authorizes electronic maintenance and reasonable fees. | §9-20 does not "expressly provide" that paper-format statutory fees apply to electronic copies; exception not met. |
| Whether earlier cases (King, Henderson) requiring §9-20 to govern remain controlling post-amendment to FOIA §6(a) | Plaintiffs: the 2010 amendment to §6(a) changed the analysis; prior cases are superseded. | Defendant: can invoke canon favoring the more specific statute over the general. | The plain amended text of FOIA §6(a) governs; prior appellate authority (King, Henderson) no longer controls. |
| Whether a conflict exists requiring selection of the more specific statute | FOIA §6(a) creates a rule with a narrow exception; §9-20 does not fit the exception, so no conflict. | §9-20 is more specific to property records and should prevail. | No genuine conflict; plain language of FOIA §6(a) controls and forbids extra fees for electronic copies. |
Key Cases Cited
- General Motors Corp. v. Pappas, 242 Ill. 2d 163 (Ill. 2011) (addressing when a notice of appeal is premature because of a pending motion to reconsider)
- Matsuda v. Cook County Employees’ & Officers’ Annuity & Benefit Fund, 178 Ill. 2d 360 (Ill. 1997) (standard: de novo review of summary judgment and statutory construction)
- MidAmerica Bank, FSB v. Charter One Bank, FSB, 232 Ill. 2d 560 (Ill. 2009) (when a statute is unambiguous, courts must apply it as written)
- Sage Information Services v. Henderson, 397 Ill. App. 3d 1060 (Ill. App. 2010) (prior appellate holding that Property Tax Code fees governed before FOIA amendment)
- Sage Information Services v. King, 391 Ill. App. 3d 1023 (Ill. App. 2009) (prior appellate holding that §9-20 governed copying fees for assessment records)