Stone Street Partners, LLC v. City of Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings
12 N.E.3d 691
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- In 1999 the City fined Stone Street for building-code violations after mailing notice to the property rather than Stone Street's registered agent or business address.
- The 1999 administrative judgment was entered, later registered as a court judgment and then recorded as a lien against Stone Street's property.
- Stone Street alleges it did not receive notice and sought to vacate the order in 2011; DOAH determined it lacked jurisdiction to vacate.
- Stone Street filed a multicount circuit court complaint seeking administrative review, declaratory relief, quiet title, and damages for slander of title.
- The circuit court dismissed all counts; the appellate court remanded on some counts and affirmed on others, with a majority holding that nonattorney representation at administrative hearings must be by licensed counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of process was valid under the Chicago Municipal Code | Stone Street argues service to property address was improper | City contends service followed a prior order and Johnson's appearance sufficed | Service improper; DOAH lacked jurisdiction to vacate; deference to city rules rejected for service validity |
| Whether nonattorney representation at DOAH violates the Unauthorized Practice of Law | Nonattorney Johnson's appearance should not nullify the hearing | Administration hearings require licensed attorney representation for corporations | Representation by nonattorney at such hearings must be by licensed attorney; remand proceeding allowed for other relief without damages |
| Whether equitable relief in count II is available despite lack of proper administrative review | Voidness of the order warrants equitable relief | Administrative Review Law controls; no void-order review outside ARL | Count II viable on remand for equitable relief; damages for slander of title barred |
| Whether the 1999 order can be challenged via declaratory or collateral actions | Declaratory relief should permit review of void administrative judgment | ARL preempts collateral challenges; exhaustion required | Affirmative: declaratory relief as to voidness not permitted; need ARL review; collateral claims barred except as remanded for proper equitable relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of Education, 201 Ill. 2d 95 (2002) (void-judgment challenge may be brought after void service)
- Nudell v. Forest Preserve District, 207 Ill. 2d 409 (2003) (mail-service timing on ARL deadlines clarified)
- Downtown Disposal Servs., Inc. v. City of Chicago, 2012 IL 112040 (2012) (corporation must be represented by counsel in legal proceedings; not an autoreview case for DOAH)
- Arvia v. Madigan, 209 Ill. 2d 520 (2004) (exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine)
- Stykel v. City of Freeport, 318 Ill. App. 3d 839 (2001) (exhaustion and preemption principles in ARL context)