Slepicka v. The State of Illinois
2013 IL App (4th) 121103
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Mary Slepicka was a resident of Holy Family Villa (a Cook County nursing home); the facility served a notice of involuntary transfer/discharge for nonpayment.
- Slepicka requested and received an administrative hearing from the Illinois Department of Public Health, which approved the involuntary transfer/discharge.
- Slepicka filed a complaint for administrative review in Sangamon County circuit court (rather than Cook County). Holy Family moved to dismiss or transfer for improper venue; the court denied the motion and upheld the Department.
- On appeal, Holy Family argued Sangamon County was an impermissible venue under the Administrative Review Law; Slepicka argued venue is not jurisdictional and Sangamon was permissible.
- Slepicka later paid the amount demanded and asserted the payment was made under protest; Holy Family argued the appeal was moot. The appellate court rejected mootness and held Sangamon was the wrong venue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing in wrong county venue under the Administrative Review Law deprives the circuit court of subject-matter jurisdiction | Venue is not jurisdictional; Code of Civil Procedure allows transfer from wrong venue and preserves timeliness | Filing in a non-permissible venue fails to strictly follow Administrative Review Law and thus defeats subject-matter jurisdiction | Venue is not jurisdictional here; wrong venue should be transferred under CCP §§2-104/2-106 rather than dismissed, but Sangamon was not a permissible venue under §3-104, so transfer to Cook required |
| Whether Sangamon County was a permissible venue under 735 ILCS 5/3-104 | Sangamon was permissible because Department has offices and decisions emanated from Springfield | Proper venue is where hearing/transaction/subject-matter occurred — here Cook County (nursing home; hearing held there) | Sangamon was not permissible; §3-104 allows suit where any part of the hearing/proceeding was held — hearing occurred in Cook County, so Cook is proper venue |
| Whether defendant forfeited venue challenge by not cross-appealing | Because defendant won below, no cross-appeal was required to raise venue on appeal | (Same) cross-appeal unnecessary when judgment is entirely favorable to defendant | Defendant could raise venue on appeal without cross-appeal because the trial judgment was fully favorable to defendant |
| Whether appeal is moot because plaintiff paid the demanded amount | Payment was under protest and compulsion; reversing would allow restitution | Payment terminated discharge proceedings and eliminates live controversy (moot) | Not moot: payment under protest may have been compelled; reversal could support restitution; appeal therefore justiciable |
Key Cases Cited
- Fredman Brothers Furniture Co. v. Department of Revenue, 109 Ill. 2d 202 (superseding Administrative Review Law principles govern jurisdiction)
- Rodriguez v. Sheriff’s Merit Comm’n, 218 Ill. 2d 342 (statutorily prescribed procedures for administrative review must be strictly followed)
- Hernon v. E.W. Corrigan Construction Co., 149 Ill. 2d 190 (specific statute controls over general statute; venue transfer preserves filing)
- Kane County Defenders, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board, 139 Ill. App. 3d 588 (timely filing in wrong venue preserved by transfer)
- Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois v. City of Chicago, 125 Ill. 2d 164 (cross-appeal required only when judgment is at least partly adverse)
- Fillpot v. Midway Airlines, Inc., 261 Ill. App. 3d 237 (cross-appeal principles)
- Ramirez v. Smart Corp., 371 Ill. App. 3d 797 (payment under compulsion; voluntariness question)
- Isenstein v. Rosewell, 106 Ill. 2d 301 (protest shows lack of voluntariness for payment doctrine)
- Dreyfus v. Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc., 298 Ill. App. 3d 933 (restitution/unjust enrichment remedies following compelled payment)
- Stykel v. City of Freeport, 318 Ill. App. 3d 839 (restitution action may be joined with administrative-review proceeding)