The Forest Preserve District of Cook County, IL v. Chicago Title and Trust Company
42 N.E.3d 440
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- The Forest Preserve District of Cook County filed a condemnation suit in 2000 relying on a May 20, 1991 ordinance that it later turned out was not validly enacted. The District produced an unsigned purported ordinance in discovery.
- The defendants accepted a settlement and an Agreed Final Judgment Order was entered in March 2003, containing broad release language.
- Other property owners later successfully challenged the May 1991 ordinance; this court in 2008 (Evergreen Park) affirmed dismissals holding the ordinance was never passed.
- After learning of those decisions, the defendants filed section 2-1401 petitions (beginning in 2004) seeking to vacate the Agreed Order on grounds the condemnation lacked authority and was entered under mistake/fraud.
- The trial court ultimately granted leave to file an amended 2-1401 petition, found the ordinance invalid (collateral estoppel), excused delay because of the District’s misrepresentations/curative ordinance, and vacated the March 2003 Agreed Order. The District appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (District) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the District failed to pass a required enabling ordinance | Lack of a valid ordinance deprives the court of jurisdiction; the Agreed Order was void | The court lacked authority to enter a condemnation based on an invalid ordinance; relief available to vacate judgment | Court: lack of ordinance affects condemnor’s authority, not circuit-court subject-matter jurisdiction; judgment was voidable, not void |
| Proper standard and scope for review of a section 2-1401 petition challenging the Agreed Order | De novo if void; otherwise section 2-1401 requirements apply | Petition attacked a nonvoid judgment — must satisfy Airoom elements and is reviewed for abuse of discretion | Court: judgment was not void; 2-1401 standards (meritorious defense, due diligence) apply and reviewed for abuse of discretion |
| Whether defendants waived challenge to condemnor’s authority by not filing a traverse or raising the issue before settlement | Waiver by failure to traverse; other cases show traverse is required | Defendants relied on District’s representations and produced ordinance; equity and section 2-1401 permit relief | Court: waiver/forfeiture rules did not bar section 2-1401 here given District’s misrepresentations and collateral estoppel; relief available |
| Whether release in the Agreed Order bars the 2-1401 petition | Release forecloses further claims; defendants must prove invalidity of release by clear and convincing evidence | The release is part of the judgment defendants seek to vacate; release invalid if judgment voidable due to mistake/fraud | Court: release does not bar collateral attack under section 2-1401 when the judgment is challenged for mistake/fraud and the underlying ordinance was adjudicated invalid |
Key Cases Cited
- Warren County Soil & Water Conservation District v. Walters, 2015 IL 117783 (clarifies standard for reviewing section 2-1401 petitions and distinguish void vs. voidable judgments)
- Smith v. Airoom, Inc., 114 Ill. 2d 209 (1986) (establishes meritorious defense and due-diligence pleading requirements for section 2-1401 relief)
- People v. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d 1 (2007) (section 2-1401 petition raising purely legal voidness challenge reviewed de novo)
- LVNV Funding, LLC v. Trice, 2015 IL 116129 (judgment voidness in civil suits depends on court’s jurisdiction over parties and subject matter)
- Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 325 (2002) (circuit-court subject-matter jurisdiction is constitutional and not negated by statutory conditions precedent)
- Nowak v. St. Rita High School, 197 Ill. 2d 381 (2001) (elements and application of collateral estoppel)
- Chicago Housing Authority v. Berkson, 415 Ill. 159 (1953) (failure to raise condemnor-authority objection in original proceeding can be forfeited)
- Thornwood, Inc. v. Jenner & Block, 344 Ill. App. 3d 15 (2003) (general releases typically do not cover unknown claims)