and state serving champaign county with dedication and nonpartisan rigor for many years i wouldn't mention his name other than set to retire after forty five years of service that deserves specific recognition that each opportunity simply follow the law and that's what this case is about it's about the collectors requirement that the tax buyer follow the illinois property tax code the code sets forth that govern the tax process governing a system that includes officials carrying out ministerial and discretionary tasks starting from the local assessment officials to the department of revenue to the clerk the county treasurer and the county collector and whether or not those who are subject to property tax actively seek to engage in their local government the tax system impacts all individuals and all of the taxing districts that utilize pop property tax to finance the majority of the services they provide there are over six thousand local government units and one hundred in two counties in illinois so it might be fair to say there's one hundred two taxing systems in place and the state property tax code is what sits atop each of these systems assuring that there's  constitutionally required uniformity admits the administration of the numerous ministerial and discretionary tasks and the one hundred two county adherence to the plain language of the code is what is that issue here and the treasurer argues that this court should enforce the plain language of the code so that uniformity is achieved the circuit court in its initial ruling on june fourteenth two thousand and sixteen stated clearly that a plain reading of the statute bars assailing air and the merger of taxes as a result and consistent with the court's findings in l v the two thousand and eight taxes cannot be merged as the circuit court further noted in that initial decision the statutory language is clear and requires this result the circuit court was correct in this analysis of the statute and its analysis of the only other decision on this provision of the code it points out to u that that case involved a scavenger sale does that matter no justice thank you whenever you look at the court's decision and l z it does not discuss the procedures and the mechanisms of a scavenger sale and that the proper interpretation to the order at issue today which touches on some of the uncertainty and the standard of review that the petitioner has presented in its brief and so i will address that briefly the court moved from its basis of statutory interpretation to then base its interpretation very generally on what it called issues of public policy and equity the tax petitioner and its brief has requested that the findings on equity included in that second order be deferred to by this court however the petitioner cites a king no cases for such a movement away from this court's to novo review of statutory interpretation the case it cites relates to specific findings of fac on a case of an attempted redemption all parties have continually maintained in this case that there is no such question of fact at issue here or at any time in front of the circuit court and because this case is solely related to statutory interpretation this court should maintain that in novo review the treasurer's arguments really are three simple reasons why this court should hear to the plain language of the property tax code the first reason is overarching purpose of the property tax code and how that must be honored the overarching purpose of the code is to provide a source of revenue to the collector is then charged with distributing the revenue to the and the proportionate share so each of the taxing bodies when you drill down to the purpose of the sales that purpose is to recover outstanding revenue revenue generation is the purpose of the property tax code drilling down even further into the sales you see purpose preferences for redemption not the issuance of a tax d whenever you're engaging in in the tax sale process the facts that issue implicate whether any county treasurer should put a sale that's been the product of a sale in error back into a subsequent tax sale that type of uncertainty doesn't align with the purpose of the code to generate revenue and to secure the revenue do you each and every year under the under the those were then put at the next tax sale to be eligible for purchase by any buyer who wished to secure the procedures of the tax code and participate in the tax sale if if this case were allowed to force treasures to question whether they should place sale in error sales back into upcoming tax sales there'd be uncertainty whether the treasurer's could achieve the purpose of securing the revenue from the initial year all the way forward into each systematic years placement into the tax sale system the these overarching purposes of generating tax revenue are not what the petitioner has presented to you purposes by the petitioner are to encourage tax by or for to supply and while the treasurer certainly agrees with that very important purpose that is not the fundamental purpose of the property tax code when discussing the overarching purpose we have to come back to the constitutional mandate of uniformity and that can be achieved by it here into the plain language of the property tax code by each county treasurer second if you look to the plain language of the statute and play to determine the purpose twenty two forty eight specifically requires redemption of all forfeitures and sales occurring subsequent to the sale it imposes that a court insists on strict compliance this requirement the collector has continually argued that there's no room for construction on this section of the statute and interpretation of twenty t forty as the petitioner request undoes that strict imposition of the twenty two forty eight requirements and then only and does the redemption requirements but when it places into question the strict compliance to all of their requirements it would be another case of uncertainty which requirements courts can look and afford not strict compliance with if this court were allowed a loud other court to forgo the strict compliance with all components of twenty to forty a twenty to forty b as interpreted by the collector is not mean made meaningless by a plain language reading of twenty two forty a even in my fairly limited time  the case law around the property tax code it's replete with and since is where good faith mistakes have been made and taxes opened up much later in that instance when the requirements of twenty to forty have occurred where it has been granted twenty to forty b would come into play such that complete merchantable title of the tax would be maintained when those opened up taxes with then be merged into the tax finally the treasurer argues that the first district's decision and l z demonstrates an appropriate interpretation of twenty two forty eight and b l z emphasized the primary role of statutory construction to the effect to the intent of the legislature l z noted that the most reliable indication of the intent is the language itself and it was in reliance on the l's each case that the circuit court initially determined that merger was an appropriate in this instance because there was no delinquent taxes when the deed was granted to the petitioner since the l z decision in two thousand and nine section two twenty two forty has been amended during the ninety eight session and notwithstanding l z no change to the twenty two forty eight requirements were made procedure for challenging an order that directs the issuance of the tax steve would likely come from any of the parties that were statutorily required to be notified of the tax steve proceeding they would be afforded the opportunity to be present at that from my experience in the property tax code i've seen cases where this is where the court dives into equity where maybe the original holder of the deed brought a case challenging the issuance of the deed under an equitable line of reasoning that they typically it has to do with whether they received notice of the proceeding in front of the court or not due to the numerous provisions of affording everyone with an interest in the property of the tax proceedings  i can't recall whether there's a strict statutory procedure after a deal has been granted because there's so much that codes into play before the  as we prepare to listen to the argument of petitioner the treasurer notes that the petitioner attempts to read even more statutory interpretation into the plain language of the code and then can be accounted for in case law or the relevant legislative history frankly that the taxpayer here attempts attempts to couch arguments in terms of what is done in other counties and that is a far cry from the constitutional uniformity that's required and which brings the collector and champaign county back consistently to the plain language of the statute the petitioner suggests there's an infinite level of uncertainty rests upon petitioners do you to the treasurer's interpretation in fact the petitioners purchasers such as the petitioner are the most savvy and their understanding of the statute of limitations relating to salesman errors the buyer has continually presented even if somewhat inconsistent models of valuation and expectations of returns on sales frankly the first presumption under the code is that there is a preference for redemption so to present numerous models on securing a deed in the value of a deed without  going to the presumption that all that any tax purchaser will be entitled to is the redemption and the statutory interests associated with that shows the error and petitioners reasoning and second then tire nature of  some level of uncertainty balanced only by the diligence of a potential tax fire savvy purchasers such as the petitioner here are in the best position to navigate this ce finally the petitioner's argument suggests that the treasurer is opposed to any circumstance where taxes are refunded and a merger is granted but simply not the case but the treasurer refuses to issue a refund unless the plain language of the sat you affords it when courts interpret sat shoots they follow the reasoning clearly outlined in l z this court shouldn't wade into the policy balancing function of the legislature by engaging with petitioners numerous policy statements that are presented in favor of tax buyers on in conclusion the position of the parties after the first order entered last summer is one that is contemplated by the property tax code the collector can be sure that he or she can place taxes that are subject to a set of assailing error into a subsequent tax sale and still achieve the purpose of collecting all tax revenues the taxing districts are able to secure their full levies each subsequent tax purchaser secures the same uniformity of process which may lead to either redemption or to their own fully merchantable deed and finally the taxpayer here has merchantable on a valuable piece of property the situation by the parties here should only encourage further tax participation by the taxpayer here and by others and do that all under the plain language of the code for these reasons we ask that this court reversed the decision this or that the bar judgment motion under section two days fourteen zero one of the code a civil procedure now you can also raise the state if you read the statute initially said that you either appeal the case within thirty days or you after thirty days use the two fourteen zero one if you recall to forty one is opposed to a motion after thirty days i believe it's up to six thirteen or something is raised within thirty days and  in the ninety's their district appellate court case i had to be involved in found that unconstitutional so now you can raise as as any judgement within thirty days by filing a motion for which the title company mr bork and the tax man or so i think commit fraud i follow what the panel company told me and they said well no you didn't you didn't serve this morning scott well if you name the mortgage company in the in the publication or you fail to name that record interest then that's grounds for treating the deed as well but that's the procedure that's tomorrow have a question for you of course the taxi was green and i believe august of two thousand the property and then it's somebody else's property so there's a one year period of time so had we had we miss that here that yes we did there is a problem but no there's no question that the knowing that we have this process and it's complicated we have this process and it works but you can't take one little piece out so low i don't like this piece let's pull this out but everything else asleep at the sec well that's what champagne county is trying to do they're saying well ok we'll take your money we'll do this do that but i understood and section twenty two forty a they love that statute and that's fine to pay the tax but they're ignoring it just is important section twenty two forty b the property and the county isn't going to get their tax from the tax by the section provides that the county can go after the original owner still stays personally liable for the tax but that's the process that we can't just pull again one little piece year there's a case on points out there's a case great well this case makes it worse than it does clarify and sort of say what i'll see you know explains this in that well when you read that i surrendered one hundred times it is very confusing as to w principle thing you have to keep in mind is when this the appellate court was assigned the l c case it was basing upon a scavengers scabbed you say it was a totally different animal and as i cited in my brief is not even to raise revenues it is to get the property back on the tax rolls the county can decide whether to whether to sell the taxes or not they hold taxes for numerous years it is dangers property owners of apartment buildings were behind the taxes for one hundred dollars and and as a scavenger sale crime that was just a different so the the tax buyer in l that's why we're here now keep in mind that elsie has only only addresses the question about whether the tax has to be paid for that's all of her dresses because remember it says specifically that section twenty  has become do then after your sale that happened here it became do again in two thousand and thirteen and you can't have an involvement in other words community richmond cannot be involved in any way with the prior owner of the two thousand and eight  taxes open up or become our i haven't been paid still to it's been agreed by both parties that the term open doc is not used in any case law is not using any statute  we can gases to walk the court meant by open up she can have an opinion i can have an opinion but it sure isn't clear at all what is clear is the purpose of section two forty b sen peterson's comments in the with  history of we're going to protect that second tab spire from assailing air on the prior year and we talk about how savvy taxpayers can be nobody in the world could predict that this twelve thousand dollar tax or to it would increase to one hundred eighty eight thousand dollars and that's what happened here and so if it had speier sitting at the sale or even thinking of going to a sale how much to bid or what interest rate knowing that this horror found correctly that this would cause have a tremendous impact upon tax buyers and cause great confusion in the tax process there are numerous cases and i've cited some of them with the supreme court and this court sailin air then became delinquent again there's no reason rule for the county not to sell because they get their money right then and there and years later there's a question of merger or question of ref that can be addressed is no different than any other sale and there you know there are numerous grounds for sale and there is and we find so as far as causing any uncertainty to the county i can't see that there would be any answer as far as uncertainly to the tax purchaser there is no question that the answer as i've said as to what's going to happen when i bid and if i do bid how am i going to get my money back if it turns out that there is a tremendous sale like tax is unfair it's unjust at the interest of course it's all interest and penalties as i think it is i know that in this we know in the facts it went up alone from october of october twenty fifth be unfair not be in the best interest of the system and would not comply with the intent or the language of the property tax code mr barr that brings me to two questions that i want to ask you so is it your position that the statute know i think that's clear and although you're making arguments about equity and it being unfair to attack sap i hear you're also taking a position that what the court did in granting the motion to reconsider in granting your motion was this is not the first time that a tax petitioner has been able to more easily answer a question about the property tax code and my experience as an assistant state's attorney representing the collector i think that goes to the point that these petitioners are in the best position to understand the tax code and to measure the level of uncertainty that exists under the code petitioner just told you and described the three to maybe four year process of securing a sale an air petition with any level of due diligence can look at any tax bills that have occurred in that three to four years can understand any interest that might accumulate and can use that to base their strategic decisions whether to proceed to whether to even engage in the tax sale at all and so all of them permission that you've heard from petitioner shows that they are in the best position to understand the code to navigate the code and it's plain language and they shouldn't be afforded policy reasons on why one section of the code should not apply in this particular situation petitioner describes it l z it's confusing and ambiguous i read l z and it's a short decision and it's straight for it and it's clear on statutory interpretation how courts should interpret the twenty two forty a and twenty to forty if you work together i don't see the ambiguity and we certainly hope that this court sees the statue at play and a clear plain language interpretation to support the collectors