*1 al., ILLINOIS, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, et A.B.A.T.E. OF v. ALEXI GIANNOULIAS, Illinois, Treasurer, al., Defendants-Appellees. of et
Fourth No. District 4 — 09—0069 3,May
Opinion filed 2010. J.,
APPLETON, dissenting. George Tinkham, Taylor Springfield, Rodney (argued), of of W. V. Taylor, Indiana, Christopher of Indianapolis, & and Matthew E. Franklin (argued), Chatham, appellants. of for (Michael Madigan, Attorney General, Chicago Scodro,
Lisa of A. Solicitor General, General, counsel), (argued), Attorney and Paul Berks Assistant appellees. opinion
PRESIDING JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH delivered the the court: Illinois, (ABATE),
Plaintiffs, A.B.A.T.E. Inc. and K. Gene Beenenga, granting order appeal trial court’s motion of Giannoulias, Quinn Hynes, defendants Alexi Daniel W. Pat summary judgment and denial their motion reconsider. af- We firm.
I. BACKGROUND general not-for-profit corporation ABATE an Illinois whose motorcycle Beenenga is a member of ABATE members are enthusiasts. and a motorcyclist. (Pub. January Act Through Public Act effective 82— 3373-76)), through January §§1 eff. Ill. Laws 82— (Act) (Ill. Training Cycle Safety enacted the Rider 95V2, 807), pars. through ch. which included a
Rev. Stat. (CRST Fund) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 95V2,par. Transportation (Depart ch. The Illinois ment) [the] to administer given “power, duty[,] was *2 1981, 95V2, Act.” Ill. ch. That section 6 par. Rev. Stat. 803. version of following respect deposits stated the with into the CRST Fund: Cycle Safety Training program pay “To finance the Rider and to thereof, Secretary deposit the costs will hereafter in Fee, Treasury equal the State an amount for Annual each $4.00 Fee, registration for each Reduced for the of each $2.00 motorcycle, cycle[,] pedalcycle motor driven and motorized processedby Secretary during preced the Officeof the of State ing quarter, which Comptroller amount the State shall transfer quarterly special Cycle Safety to a fund to be known as ‘The Rider Fund’, Training hereby which is created and which shall be by Department. Appropriations ‘Cycle administered from the Safety Training Rider Fund’ shall be made the General As sembly only Department, to the only and shall be used for the expenses Department administering provisions of the in of this Act, funding approved Regional Cycle contracts with Rider Safety Training courses, any Centers for the conduct of or for purpose related or incident thereto and connected therewith. currently Cycle Whenever the total of the amount in the Rider grants Department Fund and current to the government cycle safety the federal rider training in Illinois $1,200,000, exceed notify Governor may notify the Governor Comptroller the State and State Treasurer Cycle Safety amount to be transferred from the [Train Rider ing] Fund to the approximately Illinois Road Fund so that said total $1,200,000,and, equals notification, upon receipt of such Comptroller shall transfer such amount Illinois Road Fund.” 1981, 95V2,par. Ill. Rev. ch. Stat. 806. 1992,
In January amended the former version of (Pub. section 6 of the Act when it enacted Public Act 87—838 Act (1991 4810)). 838, §6, January eff. Ill. Laws 87— (625 (West 1992)). new version became section 6 of the Act ILCS 35/6 Public Act in 87—838 amended section 6 of the Act to allow funds adding CRST Fund to be transferred to the General Revenue Fund following paragraph the Act: to section 6 of Fund, permitted moneys “In addition to in the use notwithstanding any moneys restriction on the use ofthe Cycle Safety Training may Rider he transferred to the amendatory General Revenue Fund as authorized this Act of 1992. The finds that an excess of exists February the Fund. On shall order (or $200,000 transferred and the Treasurer shall transfer such lesser amount deposit unexpended as be on in the Fund and date) unobligated on that from the Fund to the General Revenue Fund.” 625 ILCS 35/6 In December legislature again amended section 6 of the Act Edgar’s when it overrode Jim passed then-Governor veto and Bill House which became Act January Public effective 87— (Pub. 1217, §1, January eff. Ill. Laws 87— 3775-76)). Because Public Act 87—1217 substantially changed entirety section we include it in emphasize plaintiffs its what maintain are the changes substantive to section 6 of the Act that are import to this case: Safety
“To Training program finance the pay and to thereof, Secretary the costs deposit State will hereafter the State Treasurer an equal amount to each annual fee and each fee, registration reduced motorcycle, of each motor driven cycle[,] and pedalcycle processed by motorized the Office of the Secretary during preceding quarter of State required (d) [(625 subsection of Section 2—119 of the Illinois Vehicle Code *3 (West 1992))], ILCS Comptroller which amount the State 5/2—119 quarterly shall transfer to a treasury outside the State fund Fund, to Safety Training be known as the Rider which is addition, hereby Department may accept any federal, created. In State, private moneys deposit or into the Fund and shall be used for Department only expenses administering Act, provisions for funding this of contracts approved Regional Cycle Centers for courses, any purpose conduct of or for related incident added.) thereto and (Emphases connected therewith.” 625 ILCS (West 1993). Supp. 20, 2003, Effective June relating enacted an act to (hereinafter (2004 budget implementation BIMP), Public Act 93—32 BIMP) (Pub. (2003 eff. June Ill. Legis. §50 93— — (30 (West))), Serv. which amended the State Finance Act (West 2004)) (2004 Act). through ILCS State Finance (30 (West 2004)), Relevant to this 8j case are sections 8h ILCS 105/8h (30 (West (30 (West 2004)). 2004)), ILCS and 8.42 ILCS 105/8.42 105/8J These Comptroller amendments authorized the Treasurer Treasurer, transfer amounts from certain funds held (30 (West 2004)), including the CRST Fund and from 105/8.42 through additional amounts created the increase of fees to the General upon Revenue Fund direction from the Director of the Bureau of the 105/8h, Budget. 8j 30 ILCS BIMP) (2005 30, 2004, July
Effective Public Act 93—839 amended (Pub. yet again. the State Finance Act Public Act 93—839 Act 93— July Legis. eff. Serv. 1407-08 §10— (West))) amended section 8h of the Finance give Act to Governor the to direct the Treasurer and transfer from held the State Treasurer General Revenue Fund. 30 Supp. ILCS 105/8h Later, Blagojevich Governor issued “Fund Transfer Notifications” directing the transfer money many funds, from of the State’s includ- ing Fund, the CRST into the General Revenue Fund. Defendants $1,205,600 admit that was transferred from the CRST Fund pursuant General Revenue Fund to the 2004 BIMP 9, 2006, On June plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restrain- ing order, asking the trial court to (Judy restrain defendants Baar Topinka was Treasurer and Rod Blagojevich was Governor at the time) (and transferring funds from the many CRST funds) to the General Revenue Fund. The trial court granted the temporary restraining order. 12, 2006,
On plaintiffs June filed a class-action suit declaratory for judgment, mandamus, preliminary injunction, permanent injunc- against tion defendants barring the transfer of funds from a number funds, including the CRST to the General Revenue Fund. In part, relevant plaintiffs alleged that the transfers of funds from the CRST Fund to the State’s General Fund pursuant to Public Acts 93—32 and 93—839 were unenforceable because the transfers were inconsistent with the CRST “enabling Fund’s statute” and the transfers violated several provisions. 28, 2006, constitutional July On the trial court denied the motion preliminary injunction. for In August Hynes defendant filed a motion to dismiss that the trial court denied. April 30, 2008,
On defendants filed a motion summary judg- August 12, 2008, ment. On plaintiffs filed a cross-motion summary judgment. On October granted the trial court summary judg- ment in favor of granted defendants. The court the motion because *4 “the in question BIMPs passed were after the current CRSTF Act was enacted. clear, The intent of the legislature was and the more recent legislation (i.e., BIMPs), the it can implied, repealed statute question, Moreover, CRSTF.” the court found it apparent was the fact that the prohibit acted to specific transfers from funds, Fund, but not the CRST it intended the transfer from the 5, 2009, place. January
CRST Fund to take On the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider. appeal
This followed.
II. ANALYSIS appeal, plaintiffs general arguments. In this make two Plaintiffs argue that private, because the monies the CRST Fund are pursuant could not transfer the monies to the 2004 and violating takings BIMPs without clauses of the Illinois United States Constitutions. Plaintiffs also contend that the 93rd did not have the to transfer CRST Fund funds into the General Revenue Fund because the 87th General As- sembly place beyond intended to later powers CRST legislatures sweep accomplished by making this the CRST Fund a “trust fund treasury.” outside of the state
An appellate granting summary court reviews a trial court’s order judgment Reppert University, de novo. Southern Illinois (2007). 502, 504, App. purpose 3d “The 874 N.E.2d of sum mary judgment try question fact, not is but to determine Education, 414, 421, whether one Ill. 2d exists.” Land v. Board (2002). Summary judgment appropriate 781 N.E.2d is where file, pleadings, depositions, together and admissions on with exhibits, light affidavits when viewed most favorable to the nonmoving party, indicate that there is no genuine issue of material moving party fact and the judgment is entitled to as a matter of law. 1005(c) case, parties 735 ILCS “As in this where 5/2 — summary judgment, file cross-motions for invite court presented Liberty decide the issues as a matter of Mutual Fire law.” Co., App. Insurance Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 363 Ill. 335, 339, 3d 842 N.E.2d
Further, statutory interpretation. the issue in this case is one of statutory interpretation This court Reppert, reviews issues of de novo. supreme recently 375 Ill. 3d at Our 874 N.E.2d 907. court following respect statutory stated the to the rules of construc tion: primary statutory give
“The rule of construction is to effect to legislature. legislative intent of evidence of intent best itself, statutory language given plain which must be its ordinary meaning. The statute should be evaluated as a whole. reading of its meaning of a statute is unclear from a Where statutory language and language, beyond courts look law, remedy, purpose the evils it was intended to consider legislative history of the statute.” Ultsch v. Illinois Municipal Retirement
331
plain
unambiguous,
and
a court
language
of a statute
“Where
Ultsch,
Ill. 2d at
interpretive
not
aids.”
226
need
consider
Plaintiffs contend transfer because it the Illinois and United States Constitutions clause both taking takings federal clause is private would be a monies. The following: “nor shall provides found the fifth amendment use, just compensation.” taken private property public be without Const., applicable to the provision U.S. amend. V This is made states XIV). (U.S. Const., through the South fourteenth amendment amend. Environmental, DevelopmentAuthority City v. western Illinois National L.L.C., 199 Ill. 2d 7 The Illinois tak I, ings clause is found article section of the Constitution Illinois provides: damaged property “Private shall not taken or just compensation provided by use without Ill. Const. law.” I, §15. art. Ass’n, argue Thompson Kentucky Plaintiffs v. Reinsurance 1986), (Ky. “startlingly” S.W.2d854 has similar facts and is therefore persuasive. Thompson, In issue on was appeal Kentucky’s whether could divert funds from the Kentucky Reinsurance (KRA), statutorily Kentucky Association created nonprofit corpora tion, which on operated entirely premiums collected from Kentucky insurance compensation insurance, carriers licensed to write workers’ Kentucky groups, Kentucky employers. self-insurance self-insured Thompson, legislature at Kentucky’s attempted S.W.2d 855. to premiums paid transfer to the KRA into the state’s Thompson, Kentucky’s supreme revenue fund. 710 S.W.2d 857. at court found did not have this because the funds omitted.) “clearly private (Emphasis were Thompson, funds.” at Kentucky S.W.2d 857. The from which the at tempted premiums to its solely transfer received income “from charged carriers, groups, its subscribers —insurance self-insurance employees.” self-insured at 857. Thompson, S.W.2d claim Energy Plaintiffs also this case is similar to Illinois Clean (7th Filan, There, Community Foundation v. 392 F.3d Cir. argued could require it the trustees a charitable trust that required Interstate Commerce Commission had Commonwealth proceeds Edison establish with from the sale of seven of Com up monwealth plants Edison’s to turn over million to $125 treasury and agencies upon the State’s demand environmental written budget F.3d Energy, State’s director. Illinois Clean at 936. trust, though independent Even the State it was created Energy, State and private money. was funded Illinois Clean any of Therefore, could not confiscate at F.3d 936-37. at 938. Energy, 392 F.3d Illinois Clean trust’s assets. are distin- Energy Clean
However, and Illinois Thompson both placed in that the fees collected judice case sub guishable from the privilege charged by the State for Fund are fees the CRST into from insurance The fees are not received motorcycle. operating KRA as in as the corporation such by separate and held premiums not from the CRST Fund are Similarly, monies Thompson. used, being proceeds assets with private corporation’s sale of a in Illinois trust as direction, create a foundation or the State’s Energy. Clean Holland, City Chicago is also different The case here *6 by cited (2003), case another 206 Ill. 2d through generated primarily issue were the funds at plaintiffs, where airlines, through paid by fees revenue self-generated grants federal in the CRST Fund money airports. tenants of passengers, and paying are motorcyclists who Secretary of State from by the collected (much like own motorcycle in Illinois operating a privilege cars), by held the State register their pay fees to ers of automobiles See 625 Treasurer, Department. the and administered Act authorizes federal 6 of the argue that while section Defendants fund, plaintiffs have placed to be the private donations money and private monies were any federal or evidence that actually offered no pursu- that the transferred CRST Fund or transferred into the were those monies Finance Acts and 2005 State ant to the 2004 In other Secretary the of State. funds collected than the federal funds money or restricted words, private reflects no the record Fund. the General Revenue the CRST Fund to transferred from were funds to be accept State the to authorizes Section 6 also Because no Fund. 625 ILCS in the CRST placed the transferred from monies were any private evidence shows record show cannot plaintiffs Fund to the General Revenue CRST showing a violation taken, element of an essential private money was Constitutions. Illinois and United States takings clause of the of the and, argument, we for the sake of stated, also make plaintiffs As (1) language plain the following arguments: true, the accept as the it outside placed a trust and legislature created the the shows Funds could Revenue that no General the intent Treasury with (2) the show trust, 1992 amendments the December in the placed special Fund from change the CRST to legislature intended Treasury the State trust fund outside Treasury to a inside the funds from to transfer power legislature deprive to the (3) Funds, legislative Fund into the CRST debates, message legislative history, including the Governor’s veto beyond the CRST funds legislature place intended to shows However, accepting to even these power legislatures sweep. of later legislature authority to arguments true, we conclude the had the of funds enact the 2004 and 2005 BIMPs that enabled the transfer from the CRST Fund into the General Revenue Fund. apply general
Both and the dissent have us plaintiffs would hold that the rules of trusts the CRST Fund created the Act and to legislature power to transfer funds from the CRST was without Illinois, jurisdictions, Fund to the General Revenue Fund. like most general modify rule that or revoke a follows “a settlor cannot power agree trust unless he has reserved the to do so in the trust Bank, ment.” Springfield Williams v. Marine Here, N.E.2d the General did power not reserve to itself the Act or modify revoke terms of the trust when it created the trust. While we have been un to find any addressing general able Illinois case law whether the rules trusts apply to the in circumstances similar to those present judice, sub jurisdic case at least two courts from other apply tions have refused to general principle settlor does have the power modify not revoke or terms of trust unless they explicitly legislature. reserved that See Barber v. 2008) (Colo. (where Ritter, 196 P.3d 253-54 Supreme the Colorado recognized Court modify did not reserve right creating revoke terms of the statute the trust but concluded the legislature had to do so to allow the of funds transfer fund); the trust fund into the revenue Board Trustees *7 of 09AP—768, Tobacco Use & Boyce, Prevention Control Foundation v. Nos. 09AP—769, 09AP—785, 09AP—786, 09AP—832, 3 3 — 8 0 9 A P (Ohio (where 2009) cons. December the refused ap court to general ply rule find the an created irrevocable trust because a legislature power legislatures). has no to bind future Barber,
In
petitioners
that
argued
three funds from which
monies were transferred into the general
public
revenue fund were
trusts and
general
the transfer of monies from those funds into the
revenue fund constituted a misappropriation
corpus.
of the trust
Barber,
Supreme
The
petitioners’ argument
Barber court stated that
turned
on
implicit
premise
Assembly
the Colorado General
lacked the
Barber,
to
amend
creating
alter or
the statutes
the trusts.
the transfer
Therefore,
providing the amendments
335 not that constitution is accepted [Illinois] It is “well in legislature but is a limitation regarded grant powers as a of legislation authority; legislature may any enact not upon its Bar expressly prohibited by People Chicago ex rel. the constitution.” 513, 89, Elections, Ass’n v. State Board 136 2d of (1990). stated, plaintiffs taking private 94 As not a of have shown constitution and we prohibited funds either Illinois federal have found no constitutional the transfers. provision prohibiting other Additionally, legislature “[t]he Illinois courts stated that is have *** the sole and of authority appropriation exclusive the funds of City Chicago, App. the state.” 159 Ill. 153 Galpin of Moreover, of in money “[t]he transfer accumulated one fund into authority generally province revenue fund is within the legislature.” Rosewell, 235 Ill. App. Terra-Nova Investments v. 3d (1992); 601 1117 v. Cipriano, N.E.2d see also Valstad 905, 917-18, Further, N.E.2d legislature legislatures. actions one cannot bind future See Polich v. 188, 200-01, Chicago Authority, School Finance Ill. 2d N.E.2d (1980); Illinois, White, see also Choose Inc. v. F.3d Life (7th 2008) (“It n.4 Cir. is axiomatic can that one not legislature”). shown, bind future As Illinois follows the same principles Boyce respec Barber courts used their to come to tive decisions that their respective legislatures state’s had to amend the in question statutes to allow transfer of funds held in trust legislature, created though even was explicitly not creating trusts, reserved the statutes those into the adopt General Revenue Fund. Boyce We the Barber and courts’ reason ing and legislature, by conclude the Illinois enacting the 1992 amend Act, ments did not create an irrevocable and therefore had to transfer funds Fund CRST into the General Fund via the 2004 and 2005 BIMPs. conclusion, Because of our we must look to what the later Public Acts 93—32 and accomplished. specifically 93—839 The 2004 BIMP authorized the interfund transfer at issue here as the CRST one of the funds listed from which authorized be transferred to General Revenue Fund. 30 ILCS 105/8.42 note, states, Also of 8.42 section “All such transfers shall July 1, made on practical. or as soon thereafter These notwithstanding transfers be made any provision of law to added.) contrary.” (Emphasis 30 ILCS 105/8.42 language legislature’s This shows the intent to authorize these spite transfers a time of our state’s fiscal crisis statute previously in Moreover, existence that states otherwise. section 8h Bureau of the the Director
the State Finance authorized State Treasurer and to transfer Budget to order the *9 The CRST specified fund from held the State Treasurer. (see (West 1992) ILCS is held the State Treasurer 625 deposit Treasury”)). in the State (“Secretary State will hereafter Further, exempt if CRST Fund legislature had intended to the transfers, explicitly could have done as it from these so Fund, funds, Motor Fuel Tax did with restricted federal Systems Information Trust and other funds Criminal Justice (2003 32, 5, 20, Legis. eff. Ill. See Act June 2003 listed. Pub. §50 93— — (West)); 30, July eff. 401-02 Pub. Serv. §10 93— — (2004 (West)). legislative Legis. Ill. Serv. 1402-04 These Assembly the 93rd General intended to authorize enactments show transfer Fund monies into the General Revenue Fund. of CRST
III. CONCLUSION stated, 2004 and 2005 BIMPs are constitutional For reasons Therefore, judgment. affirm the trial court’s and enforceable. we Affirmed.
POPE, J., concurs. APPLETON, dissenting: JUSTICE By respectfully majority’s I dissent from decision. (West 1992)), amendment section 6 years age an or older express declared trust. Illinois residents a valid have a beneficial interest the “trust driver’s license That which the State cannot property, fund.” beneficial interest violating takings clause of the Illinois Constitution take without (Ill. §15). I, plans budget-implementation art. are Const. already deposited take amounts unconstitutional insomuch as those amounts to the the trust fund and transfer General Fund. Express An Trust
A. the State To Create Trust Capacity 1. The any legislation free to Assembly is enact “[T]he General prohibit.” Blagojevich, Maddux expressly does not constitution (2009); see also Locust Grove 911 N.E.2d (1959) Rose, 16 Ill. 2d CemeteryAss’n v. is not scope government which (“Every subject within the civil upon be acted inhibition some constitutional within Assembly”). General I am aware of no provision constitutional expressly prohibiting Assembly the General enacting legislation from making the State of Illinois the settlor of a trust. I do not doubt that Assembly has the grant property outright, such by awarding grants public out of funds. It follows that the General also has the transfer funds in trust. “A person capacity has to create a by transferring property inter vivos in trust to the extent that he has capacity to transfer (Second) property inter vivos free of trust.” Restatement of Trusts §19, at 64
Several treatises recognize on law of trusts that a state can be (They trustee. sovereign also add that immunity might prevent a beneficiary from enforcing the trust. Sovereign immunity does not prevent us, however, statute.) assessing the constitutionality of a Scott, A. M. Ascher Fratcher, & W. Scott & §11.1.5, Ascher on Trusts (5th 2006); 607-08 ed. Bogert G. Bogert, & G. Trusts & Trustees §128, (Second) (1984); at 393 Restatement §95, of Trusts at 221-22 *10 (1959). If, in the authorities, view of these a state can take property in trust, a state can transfer property in trust to one of its I agencies. conclude that the General Assembly has the inherent to make the State of Illinois the settlor of a trust and appoint agency state as the trustee. 2. Requirements the Creation an Express Trust supreme
The court has held there are six requirements for the creation of an express trust:
“(1) parties [the] intent of the trust, create a which by shown a declaration by of trust the settlor or circumstances (2) which show that the trust; settlor intended to create a a definite (3) subject (4) matter or property; trust beneficiaries; ascertainable (5) trustee; specifications purpose of a trust how trust is (6) performed; to be delivery of the property trust Eychaner Gross, trustee.” 228, 253, v. 202 Ill. 2d 779 N.E.2d (2002). 1131 I find the fulfillment of each of requirements those in this case.
a. A Declaration
of Trust
the Settlor
(West
In section 6 of the State
2004)),
Finance Act
ILCS 35/6
the General Assembly makes “a declaration of
Eychaner,
trust.”
Ill. 2d at
by the Office quarterly shall transfer ***, amount the State which [‘] as the treasury[,] to be known outside of the State Fund,[’] hereby (Emphasis created.” which is (West 2004). added.) 625 ILCS 35/6 does not establish the existence
The mere use of the word “trust”
Ass’n,
Savings
Bell Federal
& Loan
express
Throp
of an
trust. La
v.
375, 381,
(Again,
require
six
Ill. 2d
370 N.E.2d
1131.)
met.
b. Definite Matter deposited the trust is definite: the amounts subject matter of fee “equal to be to each annual in the trust fund. These amounts are *** motorcycle, each motor registration fee[ reduced ] 625 ILCS cycle[,] pedalcycle.” driven and motorized c. Ascertainable Beneficiaries the State who are ascertainable: “all residents of The beneficiaries their 16th license and who have reached currently hold a valid driver’s These are beneficiaries birthday.” 625 ILCS “ out, the trust taking, pointed so defined and ‘capable of ” Co., Kingsley Cemetery v. Montrose uncertainty.’ not be void for (1940), quoting Gallego’s General, “It is not es Attorney Executors v. 30 Va. the beneficiaries should validity a deed of trust that sential to the if are so described or therein name. It will be sufficient appear *11 distinguished.” First they may be ascertained and designated that Schween, 573, 580, N.E. Elgin National Bank of the establishment of a authority forbidding I of no am aware case, in this The beneficiaries trust with numerous beneficiaries. numerous, and ascertainable. though are definite
Ad. Trustee fund. trustee of the trust Transportation is the Department The of “trustee,” but the use or Department Act does not call the The Ill. 2d at controlling. Throp, See La is not nonuse of that word (Second) §24(2), at 67 191; of Trusts Restatement 370 N.E.2d at powers and duties Through description Department’s its of the fund, Department the Act respect appoints to the trust trustee. power, duty[,] “the and Department
The has (West 2004)), administering ILCS [the] administer Act” 35/3 ultimately deciding specifically down to how the trust comes (consistently setting will forth the spent provisions be with the Depart- The purpose performance). of the trust and manner of of may promulgate regulations ment rules and the administration for (West 2004). designate The shall Department the Act. ILCS 35/5 universities, colleges, community colleges, the state state and com- munity agencies may organize “Training Centers,” in which “cycle safety training taught. rider courses” 625 ILCS will be 35/4 2004). (West to and Department “The is authorized shall award out of appropriations Department Cycle contracts from ‘The Safety Rider to qualifying Regional Fund’ Rider Training Centers approved Cycle Safety for the conduct of Train- (West 2004). ing courses.” 625 ILCS By regulation, rule 35/7 Department prescribe shall the curriculum and accreditation for these courses, along qualifications with the and certification requirements (West 2004). for the instructors. Department 625 ILCS The shall 35/4 accept moneys deposit fund, into the trust which it shall use “for expenses administering provisions of Act, [the] for funding approved Regional of contracts with Cycle Rider Training Safety courses, Centers conduct of or for purpose related incident thereto connected therewith.” 625 ILCS (West 2004). just These are the sort expect of tasks one would a trustee perform administering the trust fund. Specification
e. of the Trust Purposes and How the Trust
Is To Be Performed i. Trust Purpose The trust purpose provide is to “courses of instruction in the use operation cycles, including instruction in the safe on-road opera- cycles, road[,] tion of the rules and the laws this State relat- ing to motor vehicles.” 625 ILCS These courses 35/2.03 to all open years are Illinois or older age possess residents who valid driver’s license.
ii. How the Trust Is To Be Performed By describing duties, powers the trustee’s the Act describes how the trust is to performed. Generally, performance the manner of organization is as follows. The Department approve regional *12 safety. 625 centers, motorcycle courses on training which will offer enter into contracts with Department The ILCS 35/4 fund, and, pay the trust by disbursements from training these centers (West 2004). By publish their services to trainees. 625 for ing 35/7 details, in will fill certain regulations, Department rules the courses and the curriculum and accreditation for such as the (West instructors. 625 ILCS and certification of qualifications 2004). administra specify need not all the details of A trust instrument tion, describes, terms, the manner which the long as it so Zukerman, Ill. In re Estate performed. is to be 325, 330, Trustee Property the Trust to the Delivery f. as property Department, The State has delivered trust trustee, by depositing amounts in the trust fund. A Taking B. *** use without not be taken property
“Private shall I, §15. art. by law.” Ill. Const. just compensation provided as takings clause insomuch budget implementation plans violate the The the trust fund to the General as transfer amounts from for, belong to the State of doing, they take what does not so interest in the trust fund. Illinois: the beneficial funds,” “private of the trust as corpus Plaintiffs characterize apt. funds.” Neither term is “public defendants characterize it as into the trust deposits money an amount of Whenever the in two: the fund, ownership money of that divides trustee, title, legal and the beneficiaries Transportation, as receives Wilkinson, Randolph v. equitable estate. See receive §59, (1920); Ill. L. & Prac. Trusts 128 N.E. (Merchants’ & Trust Co. property Loan equitable estate (1923)), Patterson, 139 N.E. in someone’s parked than it could take the car cannot take it more driveway. fund, and, es- an educational trust
The trust fund in this case is trust fund an uncle from the educational sentially, it is no different and his as trustee. If he nephew, with himself might establish for the trust out, remove the falling he cannot nephew have account. That would be conver- private it back in his put account and case, taking). stop He can (or, uncompensated an in the State’s sion Assembly, the General (just trust account depositing money into the (625 ILCS in section 6 wished, provision repeal if it could 2004)) quarter deposited every are registration fees whereby fund). the trust ac- a sum into deposits But once he into the trust legal title. only retains count, title to it and equitable he loses the