2025 IL App (4th) 241121
Ill. App. Ct.2025Background
- Jessica Thomas, elected Peoria County Auditor, sued the County and board officials in her official capacity seeking mandamus and declaratory relief after defendants allegedly stripped duties and moved to defund/eliminate the auditor’s office.
- Trial judge Brown found the county state’s attorney had an actual conflict and, under 55 ILCS 5/3-9008(a-10), appointed Thomas’s private counsel as a taxpayer-funded special prosecutor to “prosecute the cause/proceeding.”
- The County placed a referendum on the 2022 ballot to eliminate the auditor’s office; voters approved it and the County notified Thomas the office and funding would cease November 30, 2022.
- Thomas amended her complaint to add counts XII and XIII challenging the referendum’s effect (declaratory/injunctive relief and mandamus to restore funding). The amendment was allowed and the County answered without disputing Thomas’s official-capacity allegations.
- A successor judge dissolved a preliminary injunction (per this court’s earlier reversal), granted the County’s motion to “clarify” the earlier appointment order, and ruled the special-prosecutor appointment did not cover attorney fees for counts XII and XIII; Thomas appealed that ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of the special-prosecutor appointment: whether it covered counts added by amendment (XII & XIII) | The appointment authorized prosecution of the entire "cause/proceeding," so amendments substantially related to the case were included | Appointment should be strictly limited to claims existing when the order issued; adding new counts requires a formal expansion procedure under §3-9008(c) | The court held the ordinary meaning of “cause/proceeding” includes the lawsuit’s progression; the appointment covered counts XII & XIII, so no expansion was required |
| Capacity / official vs. individual capacity for counts XII & XIII | Counts were brought in Thomas’s official capacity as auditor and thus within the special prosecutor’s authority | Counts were individual (voter) claims and therefore outside the appointment | The court held the County waived this argument by admitting the official-capacity allegation and failing to raise it timely; the appellate opinion rejects the County’s capacity claim |
| Successor judge’s authority to narrow prior appointment order to limit taxpayer exposure | Prior judge’s unqualified appointment must be followed; narrowing without new facts or legal error is improper | The successor judge may construe appointment orders strictly and protect taxpayers from unforeseen expense | The court held the successor judge abused discretion by limiting the prior order on the sole basis of taxpayer cost concerns and by misreading the appointment’s plain scope |
| Remedy: entitlement to attorney fees for work on counts XII & XIII | Thomas asked remand for an appropriate fee award covering those counts | County opposed fees for those counts, arguing they were outside appointment | The court reversed the denial as to those fees and remanded to enter an appropriate award for counts XII & XIII |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Appointment of Special Prosecutor, 2019 IL 122949 (Ill. 2019) (guides statutory construction of the special-prosecutor appointment statutes)
- Landis v. Marc Realty, L.L.C., 235 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2009) (use ordinary meaning and dictionaries when statute terms are undefined)
- Balciunas v. Duff, 94 Ill. 2d 176 (Ill. 1983) (successor judge should not lightly overturn prior interlocutory rulings)
- Armentrout v. Dondanville, 67 Ill. App. 3d 1021 (3d Dist. 1979) (court may not deny a special appointment solely to avoid paying county litigation costs)
- Thompson v. Gordon, 356 Ill. App. 3d 447 (Ill. App. 2005) (abuse of discretion exists when a decision is based on an incorrect view of the law)