Wabash County v. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund
408 Ill. App. 3d 924
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Wabash County, an Illinois county, is a participating IMRF municipality.
- IMRF charged $540,990.79 for Kaid’s omitted service credit (city attorney for Mt. Carmel) based on private legal services 1981–1992.
- Kaid later served as Wabash County State's Attorney (1981–1992); Kaid’s omitted service credit affected his IMRF pension calculations.
- Mt. Carmel reversed its 2002 omission credit decision in 2006, then settled with Kaid and IMRF; the Kaid litigation followed September 2006.
- IMRF issued a corrected pension charge and later dismissed a correction-of-records request as untimely and barred by laches (July 1, 2009).
- Wabash County filed an action in August 2009 seeking declaratory relief and administrative review of the IMRF decision; the trial court dismissed, and the appellate court granted in part relief (remanding for further proceedings).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suit seeks proper judicial review of the IMRF decision. | Wabash County argues for declaratory judgment that IMRF exceeded authority under Pension Code. | IMRF and others argue only administrative review is proper; declaratory relief is inappropriate. | Administrative review proper; declaratory judgment not appropriate on this record. |
| Whether the complaint stated a claim for administrative review under the Review Law. | Complaint alleged final IMRF decision affecting rights and exhaustion of remedies. | Complaint framed as declaratory but substance supports administrative-review pleading. | Complaint sufficiently alleged administrative-review claim. |
| What standard governs review of the IMRF’s decision to dismiss for laches. | Laches is a legal question; de novo review should apply. | Review Law deference; dismissal should be reviewed under abuse-of-discretion standards with deference to IMRF. | Laches review reviewed for abuse of discretion; court should reverse if manifest weight of evidence supports it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stykel v. City of Freeport, 318 Ill.App.3d 839 (2001) (collateral attack; void vs voidable agency decisions distinctions)
- Board of Education v. Board of Trustees of the Public Schools Teachers’ Pension & Retirement Fund, 395 Ill.App.3d 735 (2009) (void and voidable determinations; lack of statutory authority is void)
- Pollack v. City of Marengo, 335 Ill.App.3d 981 (2002) (laches in government actions; nonaction and extraordinary circumstances)
- Yballe v. Department of Healthcare & Family Services, 397 Ill.App.3d 481 (2009) (laches in administrative/government context; public policy distinctions)
- Mueller v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners, 267 Ill.App.3d 726 (1994) (party-of-record and administrative-review requirements)
- Fontana v. Highwood Police Pension Board, 296 Ill.App.3d 899 (1998) (liberal construction of Review Law; administrative review preferred)