first of which is whether the trial court error granting summary judgment favor of points if you have these against the defendants helen's specific question there is whether the one year limitations and in order to answer this question there has to be an analysis of the interplay between several statutory provisions which are in the support code one of which is in the public issue here are the there's a ten day there's a notice requirement the trustees of fire protection districts and light work public library districts are treated the same way where there has to be notice provided to the trustees each individual trustee of their respective districts ten days in advance of any action taken on an annexation and in addition to that an affidavit of service of notice if both of these one or both of these are not done in the statute is very clear the annexation of land is in effect now although that's very clear we then get to section seven dash one dash of territory that lies within a public library district where the axing body have provides library services then by operation of law that territory is disconnected from the public library district as of january first disconnection allows the disconnection allows disconnection over a specific period of time not to exceed five years allows an agreement within five years to disconnect or submissive question to the the disconnect it's my understanding of the statute again under the public library district act yes that the disconnection if there's a criteria there which i didn't get into the library district test show financial hardship four of them it did not comply with the language of the supreme there's a supreme court case which is county of st clair the city of bell bill in that case provides that notice that has to be given under section annexation or an ordinance to be passed and more specifically and more significantly didn't give a date this action was going to take so it's our position that for these ten and did not provide sufficient notice under that supreme court holding the other six by by admission i believe of the plaintiff in this matter in the discovery we did conduct they didn't i don't want to speculate or mistake what might be in their records but my recollection is there is nothing in the record as to why they did not i don't believe they were contacted back when these were passed i don't think they were caught in the years to this wouldn't be the obligation  responsibility duty of the county or to do disconnect while i believe it would be once if they became aware of it and my understanding of the facts of this case is that they became aware of it many years after the yaks ation ordinance passed when i say they i mean the county clerk first became aware of it i believe in two thousand and nine a letter was sent to the county clerk stating that requesting that disconnection take place i don't believe yes that's a correct statement they would have it out with haitian to disconnect but i think the flip side of that is if the county clerk had a good faith belief upon conferring with the state's attorney that disconnection was not the proper course of action that  that that they could they could the the focal point here really this is the statute of limitations provision found in seven one dish forty six of unison in the purpose of looking at the general purpose of the statute of annexation agreements from attack so as apply here the general purpose is far as the diligence in filing an action if there is no proof notice is not properly given if it's not properly recorded it's very tough to be diligent to file an action that potentially you're unaware of a relatively short time frame insofar as the specific purpose  place you have argued that the execution was in effect for the purpose of the disconnection it's in effect because it didn't trigger the disconnection provision so it was an effective as to i mean i think it was it was  structure from pacs dollars go to the go to the library district forsyth or whatever the case may be is that what disconnect we get if it's disconnecting the public and in this instance the parkway public library district to have already mentioned as well as wrote back the city as a personal those are the two cases that the court said that it was bound by the holdings of to determine that the statute of limitations the in that case the defendants for significance with and the court indicated they thought this was a as they put in a reasonable argument that given the language of section five slash two dash to one of the code of civil procedure which states that every action unless otherwise provided by statute shall be commenced by the filing of the complaint defendants in glendale heights argued that while this is an affirmative affirmative defense but they dug deeper the legislative purpose behind the statute of limitations for vision that we're talking about and they said that the legislative purpose of that provision was specifically to shield the zoning provisions of annexation agreements from attack after the passage of the one year limitations provision and the court repeatedly in that case limited its holding the facts of that case i think in that case the court given everything reached the right decision but frankly i think that their reasoning was strained to get there i think the pla language which you can interpret in the statute obviously plain language should trump anything get able to be given its reasonable ordinary interpretation here commencement of an action in light of the provisions of the municipal code earth scuse me of the provisions i just read of the code of civil procedure me no i didn't you give me an example with indirect commencement of an x and i think it indirect commencement would be an indirect attack because there there was an attic sation that they were contesting based on a prior annex ation twenty years before that they were arguing it was invalid on so i think that is an indirect attack an example of an indirect come into action the so any rate i think given the fact that in that case there was nothing to do with disconnecting so action was being filed action was being commenced by property owners initially it seems like the press in that case dealt with the strip annexation and almost as an afterthought they said oh and by the way this or ineffective ordinances can be challenged after one year then there is no factual situation in which section one that seven left one dash forty six can apply to finish argument big north plain language of the statute which states that the limitation applies irrespective of whether the annexation may otherwise be defective reported in the glendale heights case which which you've heard talked about a little bit the court there was presented with an argument really directly refutes that particular article was the fact the duty situations head out on those parcels in relation to this library question once the period of a decade or more at least some of those parcels were there was double taxation for a service for librar correct what about tomorrow next week next year let's suppose you loops what happens then if suppose if we lose this thinking out loud about what the effects are in the real world both and now and in down and one more point that that's really more important in the current events is that the e p points aren't asking for refunds of their of their taxes or they're just looking at the situation now and saying ok we're paying for two fiber services we'd like this to be disconnected we've made the request on the county clerk county clerk refused to do so so now here we are so  market to the public fires clear but i think the other point is that as we've talked about the clerk we've been estate extending tax on these properties to build for size levy so i think just based on that the county clerk at least had with rowe packhorse said was you have brought this challenge more than one year after the annexation agreement or the x sation ordinance was passed therefore you can no longer challenge that ordinance i think that's basically the same situation that we have here even if the allegations of the defendants in this case a true as to notice the time to challenge it has long since passed one year from the date each passed and  have no real answer for that i don't believe other than to try to claim that well our claims are based on affirmative defenses not a commencement of an action and you know that is there's counsel indicated that was discus second district case when the heights and while the court found that yes you could read the phrase commence an action to exclude affirmative defenses if you read section seven dash one dish forty six as a whole it's indicates it intent is to insulate finalized annexations from all legal attacks after one year whether or not by commencement of an action is a very strong statue of limitation use pacifically applies of his or her cause of action and those findings i don't believe are limited to the facts of that particular case but are our finding of the legislative intent purchase the arguing that with the relief is that now we're setting aside and it's a shin ordinances that have been passed more than one year but i don't think there's any way to to break apart and say well this ordinance is affective as sophists subject matter so it's it's possible would there be a right to it or could it be contested by the acceleration soon i think once you open up and say we no longer have this annexation you would have to go back  the clients right or the you know the plaintiff right saying i don't mean i'm asking if if the remedy is simply for it becoming a fact there are many you're asking and that no refund is saw what is the are we serving public policy by that occasion or is there a significant try to resist under the public library act that's certainly true and that would be based on we've got a nice library but we need that they think need to show i believe it here lack of contribution he or that the correct correct but in terms of why if this route we requested what we believe was a ministerial act on the part of the county clerk to perform something that should have been performed many years agreement so that's what the court is talking about a statutory scheme being to protect zoning provisions and that's the scheme is talking about not just some point that one dash forty six but also some other provisions of the  protecting zoning rather it's specific to protecting annexations after more than one year has passed zoning is not ever mentioned in seven national one that's forty six anywhere i think to to effectively concede in the absence of any genuine issue of material fact in fighting to court to decide to questions presented as a matter of law the affirmed fences were briefed they were addressed by both parties of argument and the presumptions should be resolved in favor of and that court decided that since your original x was brought within one year even though the character claim was brought after one year it should still say that it really impacts on where we'd or here or argue here the affirmative defense would be the equivalent of a counter claim it as much as this from the defense they're suggesting that shouldn't be lead to literally because when you look at the other language in the statute  is for close from asserting its right sixty days during that sixty day window of circuit court and just turn to you asked about the the relief in the under the disconnection provision of the library act and my partner is correct if we were able to go in circuit court and if we're able to prove financial hardship then the net effect would be that those residents would remain in the park and that this role by every district and would still be in the library tax in their village of foresight tax assessment and so the same tax it library is funded out of their general fund the same fund the funds there are streets lighting things of that nature so there is not a double taxation there's not a general fund taxation plus library taxes thank you and if you were asked a question about the county clerk and how he did this he didn't disconnect automatically with out and he did that without telling anybody and with all due respect that's exactly the problem or the place the village she's made that the ark of libraries placed in there asked to lose district they're not talking about the residence they're talking about only those two governmental entities and so if we take the hypothetical that you just proposed to me just turn around and the library has  work in the county clerk says to them well this property was disconnected and they say well we know nothing about it i think then they're in a position that library is in a position to file the same type of war into action to say that under section seven dash one dash one the disconnection was in effect because when you read so section seven deaths one def form it talks as i said only about a library and the fire protection disappears and it gets to the end and it says if this is not done meaning a notice to the library and the fire protection districts then if this is not done the annexation is ineffective with all due respect i think one of the primary questions of three of you must decide here in your ineffective and i said no the annexation is effective that disconnection is in effect and the logic behind that is simple the residents that are in this village were not attacking this an they have received the street services that this village offers they've received the police protection and the park services but there's not been effective notice so in of the argument is the an ineffective as to the disconnection pursuant to seven section seven dash one dash one what i have what i argued before judge webber and with all due respect it brought a smile that turns workers face and the record will show this and  yes mr carr with the same question i said tried with all due respect if you accept the position of foresight then they can pass an order and annexation ordinance and they can take that annexation ordinance without giving the library notice or a fire protection heights case that that provision is to address the annexation ordinances to prevent them from being attacked and it and that's exactly what happened in the case of champaign to make perfect sense the residents there there was going to be a large shopping center built adjacent to the property they always had found out of five of whom they want to run in contested and they don't want that shopping center there and if surely through this court and ultimately to the supreme court because it's a supreme court case and they said no year s pass you can't and they were contesting it on the basis of the zoning because they didn't have a chance to fight the zoning of the shopping center adjacent to their residence and so that's what we're close that's in that case the residents are for clothes from arguing about the effectiveness of the n a c of the zoning because of the one year statute but with all due respect justice turner if you want to embrace the position that  the statute of the one you're stachel imitations is effective then i think that what you're effectively doing is saying that section seven dash one dash one has no effect and the coach should be amended and that should be deleted from the co