State Building Venture v. O'Donnell
239 Ill. 2d 151
| Ill. | 2010Background
- SBV entered a long-term lease (initial 15 years, with nine 5-year renewals) for space in the Thompson Center with CMS under 20 ILCS 405/405-315(a)(s).
- Enabling statute grants leases up to 15 years and renewals if renewals are in the State's best interests as determined by the Director.
- SBV sought declaratory relief in 2006; circuit court dismissed the complaint as moot, suggesting Court of Claims as proper forum for future issues.
- SBV refiled in 2007 with count III seeking a declaratory judgment that the lease and its renewal options are valid and that damages and fees should be awarded.
- CMS moved to dismiss count III on sovereign immunity, mootness, and preclusion grounds; circuit court allowed count III to proceed (on pleadings).
- Appellate court held officer-suit exception to sovereign immunity applied and the claim ripe; Supreme Court granted CMS’s review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether count III is barred by collateral estoppel | SBV contends mootness in first suit did not decide merits. | CMS maintains prior mootness proceedings precluded relitigation. | Collateral estoppel does not bar count III. |
| Whether sovereign immunity bars SBV's declaratory judgment claim | SBV seeks a present declaration of contract rights, not an injunction; officer-suit exemption may apply. | SBV's claim is an action against the State founded on a contract and thus must be in Court of Claims. | Count III is barred by sovereign immunity; claim must be in Court of Claims. |
| Whether SBV's claim falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims | Seeks determination of rights under the lease and enabling statute, not a direct action against the State. | Action is against the State founded on a contract and belongs in Court of Claims. | Count III is within exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. |
| Whether the officer-suit exemption applies to SBV's claim | Offices suit exception prevails because CMS is acting beyond authority or under misread statutes. | SBV's suit is a declaratory action about present rights under a contract, not a challenge to authority. | Officer-suit exemption does not apply; sovereign immunity bars the action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Senn Park Nursing Center v. Miller, 104 Ill.2d 169 (1984) (sovereign immunity not bar where statute unauthorized actions; distinguishable)
- PHL, Inc. v. Pullman Bank & Trust Co., 216 Ill.2d 250 (2005) (link between general authority and contract; improper reliance can bar claim)
- Landfill, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board, 74 Ill.2d 541 (1978) (declaratory relief about statutory authority distinguished from direct state action)
- Bio-Medical Laboratories, Inc. v. Trainor, 68 Ill.2d 540 (1977) (injunction against alleged excess of authority distinguished from present contract claim)
- Sass v. Kramer, 72 Ill.2d 485 (1978) (determines when an action is founded upon a contract against the State)
- Ballweg v. City of Springfield, 114 Ill.2d 107 (1986) (finality and exhaustion of appellate review in collateral estoppel)