Village of Arlington Heights v. Pappas
2016 IL App (1st) 151802
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- The Village of Arlington Heights established two TIF districts (1983, 1986); during each district’s 23-year life the Village received 100% of tax increments and deposited them into special tax allocation funds.
- Some property owners successfully challenged assessed values during the TIFs; courts and the IPTAB ordered refunds of the overpaid incremental taxes (plus interest).
- The Cook County Treasurer issued the ordered refunds from the County’s Class A fund to comply with refund orders and avoid accruing statutory interest. Some refunds were paid after the TIFs expired.
- For refunds entered while the TIFs were active, the Treasurer deducted the amounts from subsequent tax increments paid to the Village; for refunds entered after TIF expiration (post-TIF refunds), there were no new increments to deduct, so the Treasurer sought reimbursement from the Village.
- The Village sued for declaratory and injunctive relief arguing it was not liable (or liability should be shared pro rata among taxing districts); the Treasurer counterclaimed and filed a third-party complaint against other taxing districts for contribution.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Treasurer, holding the Property Tax Code (sections 23-20 and 20-175(a-1)) impliedly authorized reimbursement from the Village; the Village appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Village) | Defendant's Argument (Pappas/Treasurer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Treasurer is authorized to recover post-TIF refunds from the Village | Village: No statutory authority; post-TIF distribution is governed by the Property Tax Code, and the Village argues it should not bear sole liability | Treasurer: Sections 23-20 and 20-175(a-1) authorize the Treasurer to make refunds and deduct/reimburse amounts from the taxing body that received the erroneous taxes | Held: The Treasurer is entitled to reimbursement from the Village under the Property Tax Code as an implied remedy; summary judgment for Treasurer affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. v. Pappas, 194 Ill. 2d 99 (county collector may exercise discretion to carry out statutory scheme)
- Lake County Board of Review v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 119 Ill. 2d 419 (interpretation supporting collectors’ discretion)
- Pielet v. Pielet, 2012 IL 112064 (cross-motions for summary judgment do not automatically eliminate fact issues)
- Hayashi v. Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation, 2014 IL 116023 (statutory construction—plain meaning controls)
- Shuttlesworth v. City of Chicago, 377 Ill. App. 3d 360 (summary judgment standard)