Village of Arlington Heights v. Anderson
963 N.E.2d 949
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Arlington Heights pursued TIF redevelopment; Village Green was the exclusive developer under a redevelopment agreement.
- A second amendment to the RDA required Village Green defendants to execute a $350,000 note guaranteeing through the life of the TIF that net incremental taxes would meet projections, with annual payment obligations if deficits occurred.
- The $350,000 note referenced Exhibit C projections; the fourth amendment modified Exhibit C projections used for calculation.
- Arlington Heights advanced $5.75 million for TIF-eligible costs; deficits for tax years 2003 and 2004 arose due to extensions, requiring annual recalculation of net incremental taxes.
- In 2008 Arlington Heights filed suit for declaratory judgment and accounting; the trial court later held calculations were annual and allowed Enright’s computations based on county treasurer data to support a judgment against Village Green.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the note obligate annual deficits payments or deficits for the life of the project? | Village Green owed annual deficits under the note as calculations were performed each December. | The note could be read to guarantee through the life of the project, not strictly on an annual basis. | Annual deficits payments required; clear language shows yearly calculation and payment. |
| Are the county treasurer reports and related data admissible to prove the deficits? | Public records and computer-generated data properly foundationed and reliable under Rule 803(8). | Foundation for computerized records should be challenged; waivable if not raised. | Admissible public records; proper foundation shown; waiver issue resolved against Village Green. |
| Was there a genuine issue of material fact regarding Village Green's alleged guarantee and the computations of deficits? | Enright’s affidavit and computations, based on official records, establish deficits and Village Green’s liability. | Disputes over numbers and interpretation create a fact dispute. | No genuine issue; deficits were properly calculated and Village Green liable on the note. |
| Is the contract interpretation permissible to avoid ambiguity when the language is unambiguous? | Language unambiguously requires annual payment of deficits. | Potential ambiguity in guaranteeing through life of the project. | No ambiguity; language unambiguously requires annual payment. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Graney, 234 Ill.App.3d 497 (1992) (hearsay foundation for public records; reliability of public records)
- Steward v. Crissell, 289 Ill.App.3d 66 (1997) (admissibility of public records under common-law and rules)
- Barker v. Eagle Food Centers, Inc., 261 Ill.App.3d 1068 (1994) (public records admissibility and reliability in business context)
- Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill.2d 229 (1986) (affidavits on summary judgment; facts admitted if uncontradicted)
- Hobbs v. Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest, 214 Ill.2d 11 (2005) (contract interpretation; unambiguous terms; de novo review)