Village of Arlington Heights v. Anderson
2011 IL App (1st) 110748
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Arlington Heights redeveloped an area under the TIF Act and selected Village Green as exclusive developer under an RDA; the second amendment required Village Green defendants to execute a note guaranteeing annual net incremental taxes equal to projections through the life of the TIF.
- The four named Village Green defendants signed the $350,000 note guaranteeing that net incremental taxes received would not be less than projections, with annual payment obligations if deficits occurred.
- Arlington Heights advanced $5.75 million for TIF-eligible costs, funded by bonds and general fund borrowing, creating a need for annual projected tax revenues to cover debt service.
- Enright, Arlington Heights’ deputy director, calculated annual net incremental real estate and sales taxes using county treasurer and Department of Revenue data and prepared a deficit spreadsheet for 2003 and 2004.
- The deficits were $111,694 for 2003 and $119,787 for 2004; Arlington Heights notified Village Green in 2005 of the deficits and amounts due under the note.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment finding the Village Green defendants jointly and severally liable for $290,375 plus interest; on appeal, Village Green challenged admissibility of certain public records and interpretation of the guarantee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the treasurer reports and sales tax data were properly admitted. | Arlington Heights relied on official public records; Enright laid a proper foundation. | Village Green argued improper foundation for computer-generated public records. | Public records properly admitted; reliable basis shown. |
| Whether deficits were to be computed annually or for the life of the project. | Note requires annual calculation and payment of deficiencies. | Argues ambiguity between annual vs life-of-project liability. | Deficits calculated annually; Village Green liable for annual deficiencies. |
| Contract interpretation of the guarantee duration and payment duties. | Note unambiguously imposes annual payments of deficiencies. | Terms could be read to imply life-of-project liability only. | Unambiguous; annual calculation and payment obligation confirmed. |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given alleged genuine issues of material fact. | Affidavits show deficits and computations; no counteraffidavits dispute figures. | Disputes over numbers and methodology create material fact questions. | Summary judgment proper; deficits established and payments required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill. 2d 229 (Ill. 1986) (summary judgment standard; affidavits admitted true if not contradicted)
- People v. Turner, 233 Ill. App. 3d 449 (Ill. App. 1992) (public records admissibility; routine government records)
- Steward v. Crissell, 289 Ill. App. 3d 66 (Ill. App. 1997) (public records exception to hearsay; routine governmental activity)
- Graney v. Barker, 234 Ill. App. 3d 497 (Ill. App. 1992) (foundation for admission of public records; reliability)
- Barker v. Eagle Food Centers, Inc., 261 Ill. App. 3d 1068 (Ill. App. 1994) (evidence; admissibility of public records)
- Hobbs v. Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest, 214 Ill. 2d 11 (Ill. 2005) (contract interpretation; plain meaning governs)
- Joyce v. DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary LLP, 382 Ill. App. 3d 632 (Ill. App. 2008) (contract interpretation; plain and ordinary meaning)
- Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Gateway Construction Co., 372 Ill. App. 3d 148 (Ill. App. 2007) (contract interpretation; de novo review of ambiguity)