Topinka v. Kimme
2017 IL App (1st) 161000
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Judy Baar Topinka died in December 2014; the political committee "Citizens for Judy Baar Topinka" (Committee) held ~$993,834 at year-end 2014 and had a pre-death statement of organization directing residual funds to a local Republican organization.
- Executor Joseph Baar Topinka sued (Dec. 2015) individually and as executor, seeking $341,618.52 he claimed was exempt under the Election Code provision allowing pre-June 30, 1998 funds to be used for certain payments, and alleging misappropriation by Nancy Kimme (committee chair) and a $25,000 payment and a $63,807.22 cash check.
- Plaintiff sought damages/conversion, a constructive trust, and declaratory relief that he was entitled to the specified funds and that Kimme lacked authority to expend funds for personal use.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(1), arguing the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the Illinois State Board of Elections (Board) has exclusive original jurisdiction over Election Code disputes; the trial court granted the motion.
- The appellate court addressed whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear Election Code-based claims or whether the Board has exclusive original jurisdiction and whether plaintiff could avoid that by seeking declaratory relief in circuit court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction over claims about committee funds and alleged misappropriation | Topinka: Circuit court has general jurisdiction; the Board lacks authority to question propriety of committee disbursements and plaintiff need not file with Board first; declaratory relief available in circuit court | Defendants: Claims arise under Election Code; Board has original jurisdiction and plaintiff must file an administrative complaint first | Held: Circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the Election Code vests original jurisdiction in the Board for these matters |
| Whether plaintiff could avoid Board jurisdiction by seeking declaratory relief in circuit court | Topinka: Declaratory judgment removes claim from Board's purview; Board cannot grant declaratory relief so court may | Defendants: Administrative remedies must be exhausted; legislature vested Board with authority to adjudicate these disputes | Held: Declaratory relief does not defeat the Board's exclusive jurisdiction; plaintiff must pursue administrative remedies first |
| Whether the Board’s authority to review expenditures is limited (e.g., to §§9-8.5 and 9-10) | Topinka: Board’s hearing authority is limited and cannot adjudicate the specific issues he raises about dissolution and fund distribution | Defendants: Election Code (including §9-8.10 and §9-18) authorizes Board to investigate and hear any article 9 matters, including expenditures and dissolution-related uses | Held: Board authority includes review of expenditures under §9-8.10 and hearings under §9-18; it can adjudicate these claims |
| Whether failure to file a complaint with the Board deprives Board of jurisdiction so circuit court may act | Topinka: Because he did not trigger the Board’s condition precedent, circuit court may hear the case | Defendants: Plaintiff cannot bypass the Board by refusing to file; Election Code requires administrative remedy first and appellate review bypasses circuit court | Held: Plaintiff cannot avoid the Board by not filing; judicial review of Board decisions goes directly to the appellate court, so circuit court could not hear the claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Relf v. Shatayeva, 2013 IL 114925 (Illinois Supreme Court) (standard for a section 2-619 motion admits complaint’s legal sufficiency but asserts affirmative matter)
- McCormick v. Robertson, 2015 IL 118230 (Illinois Supreme Court) (question of subject-matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo)
- Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 325 (Illinois Supreme Court) (circuit court jurisdiction and statutory limits when reviewing administrative action)
- Fredman Brothers Furniture Co. v. Department of Revenue, 109 Ill. 2d 202 (Illinois Supreme Court) (when court exercises special statutory jurisdiction, it is limited to strict statutory compliance)
- J&J Ventures Gaming, LLC v. Wild, Inc., 2016 IL 119870 (Illinois Supreme Court) (legislature may vest original jurisdiction in an administrative agency via a comprehensive statutory scheme)
- Troy v. State Board of Elections, 84 Ill. App. 3d 740 (Ill. App. 1980) (addressed Board authority before later statutory amendments)
- AEH Construction, Inc. v. Department of Labor, 318 Ill. App. 3d 1158 (Ill. App. 2000) (party must exhaust administrative remedies where legislature authorized agency adjudication)