Stone Street Partners, LLC v. City of Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings
2017 Ill. LEXIS 221
| Ill. | 2017Background
- Stone Street Partners, LLC owned property at 44–46 E. Superior St.; a Department of Administrative Hearings (Department) administrative law officer entered a $1,050 judgment against “Stone Street Partners” on Sept. 9, 1999 for building-code violations; a lien based on that judgment was recorded in 2009.
- The City’s notices and hearing materials were not sent to Stone Street’s registered agent or principal office; surviving records show notices went to incorrect or unrelated addresses and misidentified the owner.
- A nonlawyer, Keith Johnson, signed an appearance form at the September 9, 1999 hearing but left the part identifying his relationship to the respondent blank; Johnson had no evident employment or authority relationship with Stone Street and died in 2004.
- Stone Street learned of the recorded lien in 2009 (claimed to learn in 2011), sought administrative relief in 2011 to vacate the 1999 judgment, was denied on jurisdictional grounds, and then filed suit in Cook County seeking administrative review, declaratory relief, quiet title, damages (including slander of title), and related claims.
- The circuit court granted the City’s section 2-619 dismissal as to counts II–IV and affirmed the Department on count I; the appellate court reversed in part, holding the 1999 proceedings failed to afford Stone Street proper notice and remanded as to declaratory/quiet-title relief in count II; this Court affirmed the appellate court’s judgment and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1999 administrative proceedings provided adequate notice / acquired personal jurisdiction over Stone Street | Stone Street: it never received constitutionally or statutorily required notice; therefore the Department lacked personal jurisdiction and the judgment is void | City: participation of Keith Johnson at the hearing cured any notice defect; alternatively, administrative proceedings do not require attorney representation so lay appearance could waive notice | Held: No adequate notice to Stone Street; Johnson had no actual or apparent authority to represent Stone Street, so his appearance did not waive lack of service; the 1999 judgment was void ab initio for lack of personal jurisdiction |
| Whether nonlawyer appearance by Johnson constitutes unauthorized practice of law and whether that affects waiver | Stone Street argued the proceedings were fatally flawed by lay representation and unauthorized practice of law | City argued Dept. proceedings do not require legal skill and that lay representation should be permitted (or at least prospectively allowed) | Held: Court declined to decide unauthorized-practice question as unnecessary; resolution rested on lack of authorization/ratification of Johnson’s appearance rather than whether lay representation violates practice-of-law rules |
| Whether the Department’s 2011 refusal to set aside the 1999 judgment barred judicial relief | Stone Street: even if the Department declined jurisdiction, a court can set aside a void judgment | City: Dept. lacked jurisdiction to revisit the 1999 order; circuit court’s affirmation was proper | Held: Because the 1999 judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdiction, Stone Street may pursue declaratory and quiet-title relief in circuit court despite the Department’s 2011 action |
| Whether slander-of-title/damages claims against the City survive statutory immunity | Stone Street sought damages for slander of title and related harms | City invoked Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act §2-107 immunity for libel/slander by public entities | Held: Monetary damages premised on slander-of-title theories are barred by statutory immunity; equitable declaratory/quiet-title relief is permitted for challenges to the void 1999 judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Downtown Disposal Services, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 2012 IL 112040 (discussing corporations’ need for counsel in certain proceedings and unauthorized practice analyses)
- Gray v. First National Bank of Chicago, 388 Ill. 124 (1944) (appearance by unauthorized person does not waive personal-jurisdiction objections)
- In re Abandonment of Wells Located in Illinois, 343 Ill. App. 3d 303 (2003) (notice prerequisites for administrative adjudication are jurisdictional)
- City of Chicago v. Fair Employment Practices Comm’n, 65 Ill. 2d 108 (1976) (void administrative orders may be attacked collaterally)
- Siddens v. Industrial Comm’n, 304 Ill. App. 3d 506 (1999) (void administrative orders may be attacked at any time)
- Cullen v. Stevens, 389 Ill. 35 (1944) (burden in collateral attack: want of jurisdiction must appear on the face of the record)