No. 2-- 06--0359 Fil ed: 7-26-07

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ YORK CENTER FIRE PROTECTION ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court DISTRI CT, ) o f D u P ag e C o un t y. ) Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, )

) v. ) No. 04-- L--816 ) KUBIESA, SPIROFF , GOSSELAR AND ) ACKER, P. C., and JOHN FE NNELL, ) Ho no r ab le ) John T. El sner, Defendan ts-Appellees. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEHU TC HI

NS ON de l i v ered th e op i ni on of th e c our t: Pla int iff, York

Cent er Fire P ro t ect ion Dist rict , a ppe als fro m the t rial co ur t 's dism i ss al, w i th prejudi ce, of its second amen

ded complai

nt allegin g pro fessi onal negl igen ce agains t defendants, Kub ie sa, Spi

roff , Gosse l ar &

Acke r, P. C. , a nd

its agen t, Jo hn F enn

ell. Pl ai ntif f argues that t he trial courter r ed in

conc l udi ng th at i t fa i l ed to adeq

uatel y plead d am ages . For the reasons that foll ow, we affir m. On

Oc tob er 3, 2 00 5, p l ai

n ti f f f i l ed i ts sec ond amende d co mplaint ag ainst defend ant s, a lleging t he f oll owi ng. In Septem b er 20 01 , pl ai n ti f f deter m i n ed th at a re f eren du m wa s n ec es sa ry to in crease it s revenue and asked defen dants, sp eci fi

cally Fenn ell, to make recom

me ndations regardin g a r efe r en du m. De f

en da nts were a wa re of t he am oun t of i n crea se d ta

x re v en ue th at p l ai n ti f f de si re d toNo. 2-- 06--0359

-2-

o bt ain through t he

ref ere nd um proc es s. Two p ub l i c q ue sti ons were p l ac ed

on th e b al l ot on November 5, 2002, based o n defen dants' fi nal recommendations. Pri orto voting, the voting publi c was i nf ormed that the upcomi

ng ref erendum wo uld r es ult in a 35 % inc r ea se t o t he t ax ab le r at e; ho we ve r , in r ea lit y, th e ta x ab l e rate re com men de d b y de f en da n ts was no t mo r e t ha n 1 0% . T he vo t ing pu blic w as als o ad vise d t ha t pla in t iff wo uld r ece ive ap pr o ximat ely

$40 0, 000 in fundingunde r t he tax in crease; h owever, the most that could be obtai ned was $90,000. The referen dum passed, and pl

ai ntif f l ater le arned

t hat its " intent and p ur po se be hind the re f eren dum had not b een

met." Acco rd ingto pla

in tif f, as a res ult of i ts reliance on def

endan ts' erroneous legal

advice, it sustain ed losse s o f n o les s t han $4 00, 000 in pro per t y tax r evenu e. "[P ]laint iff had p re sent ed t he voterswit h a pla n fo rinc r ea se d o pe r at io ns, fac ilit ies , an d e qu ipme nt , wh ich co uld not be reali zed due to t he r eco mmendat ions o f the defend ant , a nd had to be put on reserve f

or t wo years." Pl

ai ntif f was a lso re qu ire d t o su bmit a s ubs eq ue nt re fer end um t o vo t er s, whic h pa ss ed . A cc o rd ing t o pla int iff, f rom t he pa ss ag e o f t he firs t r efe r en du m t o t he pa ss ag e o f t he se co nd r efe r en du m, it suf fered dam ages "id en t ifiab le at no les s t ha n 2 5% t o 30 % lo ss o f r ev en ue , wh ich amo un t s t o in excess of $200,000.00 per y ear." On October 7, 2 00 5, d

ef en da n ts moved t o d ismi ss t he co mplaint u nder sec t ion 2
-- 615 of t he Code o f Ci

vi l Procedure (the Code) (735 ILCS 5/2--615 (West 2004)). Defendan ts argued that pla int iff f ail ed to adeq

uatel y plead b oth proxi

mate ca use and dam ages . Plai ntif f f il ed a response, and defen da n ts f i l ed a re pl y . On Ma rch 6, 2 006 , th e tri

al cou rt gran ted de f en da nts ' m oti on . T he t r ia l courtheld t hat alt ho ug h "[ t ]h er e is n o qu es t io n t hat t he p laint iff h as pl ed prox i mate ca us e, " p laint iffNo. 2-- 06--0359

-3-

fai le d to ple ad da

mages . Pl ai

ntif f tim el y appe aled. T he i ssue befo re t he co ur t is whet her t he compl ai nt states a cause of acti on upon whi ch rel ie f coul d be granted. A moti o n t o dis miss u nde r s ec t io n 2- -6 15 o f t he C o de at t ac ks t he le ga l su fficienc y of a co mplaint by

alleging de fect s ap pea ring on i ts f ac e a nd sh oul d b e g ran ted i f the com pl ai nt d oesnot alle ge suf f i cien t facts to state a c aus e of

action. Ill

in ois Graph ic s Co. v. Nickum

, 15 9 I ll. 2d 469, 484 (1994 ). When

reviewi ng a m ot ion to dismi

ss unde r se ct ion 2
-- 615 , t he co ur t mus t ac ce pt as t rue all well-pl eaded f acts a nd i nterpret the a

l l egati ons i n a l i ght m ost fa vorabl e to the pl

ai ntif f . Y ou ng v. Br yco Ar ms , 213 Il

l . 2d 433 , 441 (2 004). " If , however, af

ter an y l egal and f actual conc l usi ons a re dis regarded, the

com pl ai nt d oesnot a l l eg e suf f i ci en t f ac ts to s tatea c au se

of ac ti on, the

moti on to dismiss sho uld be gran

ted." Rockford Mem

orial Hospital v. Havri le sko , 368 Ill . App. 3d 115, 120 (2006 ). Our review i s de no vo . T&S Si gns, In c. v . V i l l ag e of

W ad sworth , 261 Ill . App. 3d 1080, 1084 ( 1994) . A pl ai n ti f f i n a l eg al mal pr acti ce acti on m us t ple a d the fol

lowi ng: (1) the existence of an at t or ney-client relationshi p; (2) a duty ari si

ng f rom that relati onshi

p; (3) a breach

of thatdut y by the de f en da n t; (4) proxim

ate cause; an

d (5) da m ages . C la

ire Associa

tes v. Pontikes , 151 Ill . App. 3d 116, 122 (1986) . Here, we agree with the t rial cour t t hat plai

ntif f f ail ed to plead dam

ages. Pla int iff ple ad ed t ha t , if

t he first re fere ndum had been p ro per , p laintiff wou ld have obtaine d greater re venue in the p er iod bet wee n t he pa ssag e o f the first re fere ndum and t he pa ssag e o f the second. Ho we ve r , a mu nic ipa lcorp or ati on i s n ot en ti tl ed to m ake a prof i t ( Schum an v . Chicago T r an sit A uth ori ty , 407 Ill . 313, 320 (1950)), and thusa l oss of mone y , i n a nd of itsel f, can not damageNo. 2-- 06--0359

-4-

it . A s th e tr i al cou rt p ut i t, " a m un i ci pal cor porati on ca n n ot ac cu m ul ate money for the pur pose of acc umulat ingmo ney. " Ac co rd ingly, pla int iff had t o p lead d amage s beyo nd t he mer e lo ss o f mo ne y. To th at e n d, p l ai n ti f f atte m pte d to p l ead th

at i t was damage d by

the del ay i n ob tai n i n g i ts desi redrevenue . Bu t pla int iff did no t su cc ee d. I t is t ru e t hat , in a le ga l malpr ac t ice ac t io n, a p laint iff ma y sue f or t he l oss of the use of m

oney , which ordi

nari ly isan eco nomi

c l oss that t he Moorman do ct rine preclude s i

n tort . See Ca

l ca gn o v . Pe rs on al ca reHe al th Ma n ag em en t, Inc. , 207 Ill . App. 3d 493, 50 1 ( 19 91 ) (l

oss of us e of mon ey i s s ub j ect to Moorman

do ct rine); Radtke v. Mu rp hy , 31 2 I ll. App. 3d 657, 664-65 (20 00)(leg al mal pra cti cei s exc ep ti on to Moorman doctr in e). However, that loss general

ly is me asured i

n i nterest (see I llino is S t at e T o ll High way Authority

v. Am erica n Nati onal Bank & Trust Company

of Chi cago , 162 Ill . 2d 181, 199 (1994)), and pl ai ntif f h ere did n ot alle ge that it had lost i

ntere st. Instead, it all

eged only that it had t o wait t wo years to upgrade its "o perat ions, f aci l i tie s, an d equ i pm en t." Un do ub t ed ly, plaint iff

was t empo ra rily unable t o implement its p lan, bu t i t si m pl y di d n ot alle ge any resul ting l oss. It did not plead that

its upgrades were s o im

me dia tely necess ary that i

t was forced to spend al

ternative f

unds to eff

ect them. It did n

ot ple ad that its o utmoded attr ib utes subj ectedit to li

abi li ty f or some unf

ort unate accident. It did not even pl ead that it was f

orced to in

cur atto rney fee s o ro t he rco st s t o su bmit t he se co nd r efe r en du m. Agai n, plai ntif f al le ged onl y tha t it was del ay ed i n i m pl em en tin g i ts plan . Th at , without more, did n ot establ is h dam ages. See Har lev v. San i tary Dis trict of Chi

cago , 226 Ill . 213, 225 (1907) (public body ma y n ot recover dama

g es fo r de l ay i n com pl eti on of pu b l i c i m pr ov em en t, as i nj ury is me r e p ub lic inc o nve nie nc e a nd is inc ap ab le of measurem

ent). Acco rdingl

y, the trial court p rop erly

granted de fen

dants' motion to dism

iss.No. 2-- 06--0359

-5-

We af fir m t he ju dg men t o f t he cir cu it co ur t o f D u P ag e C o un t y. Af fi rmed. ZENOFF, J., co ncurs. JUSTICE O'MA

LLEY, di ssen

ting: I di sa gre e w i th th e m aj ori ty's con cl us i on th at p l ai nti f f di d n ot ad eq ua t ely p lea d d ama ge s int his case. Pl ai n ti f f pl eade d th at " da mag es as a res ul t of th e p as sa ge of th e f i rs t re f eren du m to t he se co nd referen dum are identif

iab le at no less than 25% to 3 0% loss of re v en ue , w h i ch am oun ts to in excess of $200,000.00 per year." Readi ng thi s al le gation l ib erall y, as I mus t at t his s t ag e in proceedin gs (see Yo ung , 2 13 I ll. 2d a t 441 ), I infer t he al l eg ati on t hat t he r efer endu m was fo r o ngo ing re venue , a nd not just for t he t wo years pr ece ding t he sec ond re fere ndum. My rea ding is co nsist ent wi th the Fi re Prote cti on Dis trict Act (Act), which

provides that t he ordi

na nc e a l l owi ng the l ev y an d c ol l ec ti on of taxesf ora f i re district "constitut es author ity *** to extend t axes an nu ally at the ra te so provi ded." ( E mph as is added.) 70 ILCS 705/1 4 (West 200 4). Th us , I dis ag re e w it h t he ma jo rit y t hat "p laint iff al l eged onl y that i t was delay

ed i n i m plem en tin g i ts plan ." Sli

p op. at 4. I r ead plaint iff as a lleging th at, un t il the proper re fer end um p as se d, ea ch ye ar 's ins t allment o f re ven ue wa s lo we r t han pla int iff would ha ve otherwis e recei

ved. In other words, I interpret plaint iff as a lleging t hat it int ende d t he origi nal re f eren du m to re su l t i n i ts re ce iving $4 00 , 00 0 e ac h r ev en ue pe r io d u nt il t he vo t ing pu blic reversed t he origi na l ref eren dum . To ill

ust ra t e wit h number s, if plaint iff re ceived only $9 0, 000 in the fi rst insta llm

ent , bu t re ceived t he ful

l $400,000 i

n the second i

nstallm ent, it recei

ved $310,000 less than the $800,000 i

t would have recei

ved.No. 2-- 06--0359

-6-

Though pl ai n ti f f may h av e b een ab l e to i m pl em en t m an y of th e i m prov em en ts i t so ug h t to ma ke once the proper referendum was passed, the del

ay in im pl em en ti ng the f i rs t roun d of i m pr ov em en ts was not th

e on l y ha rm pl ai nti f f su f f ere d, b ec au se

pl ai nti f f coul d have m

ade m ore of t he impr o ve men t s if

it ha d a lso r ec eiv ed t he mo ne y aft er t he firs t r efe r en du m. I r ead plaint iff 's sec ond am ended compl ai nt as al le g i n g th at i

t es senti al l y wa s u na bl e to i m plem en t the f ul l f i rs t roun d of i m pr ov em en ts un ti l i t rec ei ve d the m

one y tha t othe rwise woul d have g one

to a s ec ond

roun d of im pro vem ents. The n, I infer, t he f

i rs t roun d of impro vement s wa s implemente d, but t he se co nd r ou nd was no t mad e, an d s o o n. Pla int iff will p er pe t ua lly f orgo on e y ea r of impr o ve men t s u nt il t he sho r t fall is corr ected. This i

s not just a delay--plai

ntif f l ost one ro und of im

pro vem ents. Pu t pl ai n l y wi th t he sa me i l l ustrati ve num bers I u se a bove , by t he t ime the s eco nd r efer endu m passe d, plaint iff sho uld have been ab l e to i m pl em en t a tot al of $8 00 ,00 0 w orth

of i mprovem ents, but, due to defen

dants' al le ged negl ige nce, it wa s a ble t o i

m pl em en t onl y a tota l of $4 90 ,00 0. No m

atte r how m an y i n sta l l men ts pla int iff recei ves, pl ai ntif f wi ll stil l h ave recei ved l ess reve nue due t o t he shortfall

from the fi

rst r efe r en du m. The maj ority holds that plai ntif f' s all egin g a loss of re v en ue i s n ot en oug h to plead dam

ages: "[A] m un i ci pal cor porati on i s n ot en ti tl ed to m ake a prof i t [c i tation ], a nd

thu s a l oss of mo ne y, in an d of i tse l f , c an n ot da mag e i t. A s th e tr i al cou rt p ut i t, 'a m un i ci pal corp orati on ca nn ot ac cu m ul atemone y f or th e p urp ose

of acc umulat ing

mone y.' Accordin

gly , plai ntif f h ad to ple ad dam

ages bey ond the me

re loss of mone y." Sl ip op. at 3-4. Fi rs t, plai ntif f sp eci fica lly it emiz ed in it s c o mp lain t ho w it wo ul d h av e s pe nt t he miss ing mo ne y. Pla int iff al l eg ed th at i t i n ten de d to u se i ts in creased reven

ue "f or increas ed

op er at ions, facilities, andNo. 2-- 06--0359

-7-

equi pm en t," inc lud ing "b uild ing r en o va t io n ( $1
. 2 millio n ** *), purchase of a h eavy rescue squad ($386 ,000.00 ), a new am bul ance ($157,000.00), hi

rin g of a f ull -tim e f ire chie f ( $76 ,0 00. 00) , a nd hiringof two part -tim

e fi refi ghters ($70,000.00)." The Act speci fi cally all ow s a f i re protecti on dis trictt o " acc umulat e fund s for t he pu rp os es o f building, r epa iring and i m provi ng f i rehouses ," among ot her thi ngs . 70 IL CS 70 5/14 (W

est 200 4). Theref

ore, plai ntif f di d not seek to "accum

ula te money f orth e pur pos e of ac cu m ul ati n g m on ey ," b ut, ra th er , if i t so ug h t to ac cu m ul ate m on ey , i t pl an n ed to do s o f or p ur pos es sp ec i f i ca l l y al l owe d u n der the A

ct. Second, I won

de r howthe ma

jori ty would res

pond to a crim

in al defen dant who i s convi

cted o f emb ez zling fr o m a mu nic ipa l co r po r at io n a nd wh o ap pe als on t he ba sis t ha t "a lo ss o f mo ne y, in an d o f it se lf, ca nno t da mag e" a mu nic ip alit y. Thi rd, ev en as su ming t ha t pla int iff co uld no t ac cu mula t e mo ne y f or an y pur pos e, I do n ot agree wi th th e a bov e-q uote d s tate men

t f rom the m aj ority. I do not thin

k it f oll ows that, because a mun ic ipa l co r po r at io n c an no t pr o fit , it canno t be da maged by a l oss of mon ey. Rath

er , I b el i ev e th at, if a m un i ci pal corp orati on ca nn ot prof i t, th en , as the tri al cou rt sa i d, i t ca nn ot "accum ul atemone y f or t he pu rp os e o f accu mulat ingmon ey." How ev er , i t m ay sti l l ac cu m ul ate assets and col

le ct revenue, and, i f som eon e c au se s th

e m un i ci pal i ty to lose or f org o th ose

as sets o r p re v en

ts th e m un i ci pal i ty f rom re alizing t hat re ven ue , t he mu nicip alit y is da mag ed . R eve nue is no t t he s ame as pr o fit. Pla int iff ma y n ot hav e been abl e to keep t he $310,000 as profi t, but it could hav

e spent i t o n an am bul ance. I f i nd prece den

t to support the

noti on th at a n e nti ty may be da mag ed by l oss of revenue even if it is no t ent itled t o p ro fit fro m the re venue . Fo r e xample, in Je wish Hos pi tal of St. Loui s, Mi

ssouri
v. Boat me n'sNat io na l Ba nko f Be lleville , 261 Il l . Ap p. 3d 75 0 (199 4), the

plai ntif f s, two not-f

or-No. 2-- 06--0359

-8-

pr o fit entities that we re rem ai nde r be ne f i ciaries of two testam

en tary trusts, sued, int er alia , t he atto rney who dr aft ed t he wil

l a nd represen

ted the estat e, on the ground that t he attor ney 's n eglige nce caused th e estate "to unne cessari ly pay $878,709 in

estate t axes an

d in terest, whi

ch reduce d th e amou nt plai

ntif fs [receiv ed]." Jewi sh Hospi

tal , 261 Ill . App. 3d at 753. Thoughit did no t sp ec ifica lly addre ss the i ss uehe re, the appe l l atecou

rt reve rs ed the tri al cou rt' s g ran t of sum mary j udg men t f or de f en da n ts an d h eld t ha t t he de fen da nt law yer co uld be he ld lia ble to the not- f or-p rof i t plai nti f f s f or his al l eged ne gli gen ce i n dr af tin g the wil l . Jewi sh Hospi

tal , 261 Ill . App. 3d at 761. In Cit y o f Sp r ing field v. Allp hin , 74 Ill . 2d 117 (1978), t he m unici pal pla in tif fs sued th e S tate on the ground that t he act thatallo we d t he St at e t o wit hho ld as a coll ection f ee 4% of m

unici pal taxes bef ore distrib

uting them

to mun ic ipa li ties h ad been am ended an d the coll ection am ount reduced to 2%, yet the Sta

te w rongf ul l y wi thh el d 4%af ter th e e f f ec ti ve da te of t he ame nd men t . T he su pr eme courtagr eed , a nd it re manded t he ca use for t he t rial co ur t t o fa shion injunct ive relief "t o r edu ce t he amou nt of s

uch taxe s wi thheld by the State unti l the e arl i er ove rwi thhold i ng i s com pensated f or." Allp hin , 74 I ll. 2 d a t 13 1. ( T he co ur t did not o rder in terest paym

ents due to issues

with s overeign im mun ity . See Cit y o f Sp r ing field v. Allp hin , 82 Il l . 2d 571 , 579-8 1 (198 0).) The above cas es appear to co ntempl ate, as I do, that a mun

ici pali ty may be harm ed by lost
r ev en ue , ev en if it cou

l d n ot h av e c on v er ted th at rev en ue to prof i t. I woul d a pp l y th at rea son

i n g to this case an d hold that plai

ntif f h as al le ged dam

ages i n that it lost revenue asa re sul t of defend ant 's negl ige nce.