No. 3–09–0134

______________________________________________________________________________ File d October 15, 2009 IN THE A PPELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS THIRD DI STRICT A.D., 2009 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF THE COUNT Y COLLECTOR FOR ) of th e 9 th Judi ci al Ci rc ui t, JUDGME NT AND OR DER OF S ALE ) Ha nc o ck Co un t y, I llino is AG AIN ST LA

NDS A ND L OTS RETU

RNED ) DELINQUENT FOR THE NON-PAYMENT ) OF G ENERA L TA XES F OR TH E ) YEAR 2004, ) ) and ) ) DENNIS D. BALLINGER, ) No. 08-TX-6 ) Peti tion er-A ppel l an t, )

) v. ) ) PETTIT LA

ND, LLC., ) Ho no r ab le ) Davi

d F. Stoverink, Responden

t-Appell ee. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________

JU STI CECA

RT ER de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t:

______________________________________________________________________________ Peti tion er, Denn is D. Balli nger, fi le d a petition to obtain a

tax deed to cert ai

n real pr operty located i n Ha n cock C oun

ty . U pon re ce i v i n g n oti ce of th e m atte r, res pon den t, Pe t t it Land, LL C., fi

le d a m oti on f or de ni al of tax de ed orfor clari fi

cation of the interest t hat pet itioner would acquire as a
r es ult of the tax deed proceedi ng. Af ter a heari ng on responden

t’s motion, the trial

court found that petitioner wo uld ac quir e o nly an inter est in the impr ove ment o n t he prop erty i n q ue sti on and n ot an i ntere st i n the groun

d i tself . Peti tion er app eals. We di sm

i ss th i s ap peal f or la ck of j uri sdi cti on.2 FA CTS In June of 2 008 , p et itio ner fil ed t he inst ant pet itio n see king to have the trial co ur t dire ct t he cou n ty clerk t o iss ue a t ax de ed c onv eying t o him re al pr ope rty l oca ted i n Ha n cock C oun

ty wi th parcel ide ntif ic ation num

ber (PIN) 09-06-000-060 (parcel 060). Petitioner al le ged in the petition that he had p ur chas ed t he de linquent 200 4 pr op er t y taxe s (p ayable in 200 5) for par cel 06 0, t hat t he red em ption per iod was due t o e xpire , t hat t he t axes had no t been r ede emed, and that he was entitled to a tax de ed to parc el

060. Ta ke no t ices w er e se nt out regardin g parcel 060. Respondent recei

ved a take notice

as an i nte res ted pa rty . Sh ortl y the reaf ter, i n A ugu st of 2008, respondent fi

le d a m ot ion f or denial of tax deed or for c l arif

i cation of the i ntere st that pe

titi oner woul d acq

ui re i n the un derl y i ng g ro und as a resul t o f the tax

deed proceedin

g. In the m

ot ion, responden

t alleged that parcel 060 pertai ned o nly to an i mprovem ent, speci fi

cally a comm unications tower, t hat had be en plac ed o n t he und er lyi ng gr ou nd at t ha t lo cat ion;that respondent was the owner of that underl yi ng ground, whi

ch h ad a separat e PI N o f 09
- 06
- 00 0- 06 2 ( pa r ce l 06 2) ; t ha t r es po nd en t ha d e nt er ed int o a le as e w it h a co mmuni cat ions com

pa n y wi th re ga rd to th e tower

si te; an d th at th e ta x es f or p arce l 06 2 ( th e un derl y i n g g rou n d) h ad al wa y s b een pai d a n d w er e n ev er de l i n qu en t. A he ari ng wa s h el d on res pon de nt’ s m oti on . At t he he ari

ng , attor ne y s w ere pre sent f or re sp on den

t, f or peti ti one r, a nd f or th e c oun

ty . Re sp ond

en t pre sente d the te sti

moni esof Dal e B ol ton and Denn is Pett it. Bolton testif

ie d tha t he wa s th e supe rvi sor of as se ssmen

ts f or H an cock C oun

ty and ha d he l d tha t posi tion si nc e Dec em

ber of 2 002. Bo lto n ident ifi ed r esp ond ent ’s exhibit 1 as t he pr operty record card for parcel 060, responden t’s exh ibit 3 as the parcel

in form ation report for parcel 060, and responden

t’s exh ibit 4 asthe p arce l

i nf orma tion reportfor parcel 062. Based upo n those3

exhi bi ts, Bolton testif

ie d that parcel 060 pertain ed onl y to the co mm

unicat ions t ow er itse lf (the asse ssment f

or that i m prove men t) and not to the un

derl y i ng g round . Accordin

g to Bolton, parcel 062 pertained to th e u n derl y i n g g rou n d. B ol ton ackn owl ed ge d, h owev er , that n

on e of th e th re e ex h i b i ts in dic ated t hat t her e wa s a leas eho ld o n t he pr op er t y. Bo lto n t est ifi ed fu rt her t hat pur sua nt t o t he cou nty’s policy

over the las

t several ye ars, a tax bi

ll was not sent out as to parcel 062 beca use t he amou nt of the tax bil

l would h ave been l

ess than $150. Wh

en asked wh y two di f f eren t PINs we

re establ is hed re lating t o t he pr op er t y, Bo lto n st at ed t hat t he t wo PI Ns w er e es t ablished be for e he be ca me the

su pe rvi sor of asse ssment s and t hat his cur re nt pr act ice wa s t o no t sep ar at e t he und er lyi ng ground f rom th e leas ehold

(the i m prove men t). De nnis Pett it test ifi ed t hat he was one of three memb ers of respo ndent, Pet tit Land, LLC. Resp ond ent had a lease w ith a c ommunicat ions c omp any in relation to a comm

unications tower on land that wa s owned b

y re s pondent. Over the past 10 to 15 years, Pett it had receiv ed tax bil ls, no r mally i n th e a moun t of $24 to $26 , f ort he und er lyi

ng gr ou nd

at t he t o we rsit e a nd ha d a lwa ys p aid those b i l l s. A

t so me p oi

n t, Pettit stopped ge

ttin g tax bi l l s f or the un derl y i ng g round . Pett it testif

ie d further that he nev

er receiv ed a tax bi ll for the comm

unications toweritsel

f or any thin g that indi cated that the taxes were not bei ng pai d, until he recei ved the take notice i

n the m ai l s tating that respo ndent’s lan d w as be ing invo lve d in t he t ax deed p ro ceeding. Pet tit ident if ied respo ndent’s exh ibit 2 as the take notice tha t he had recei

ved, whi ch was f or parcel 060. Dur ingcros s exa

m i na ti on by the c ounty, Pettit was prese nted wi th n um erous exh i bi ts. Pe t t it ide ntif ie d co unt y’s exhibit 1 a s t he initial lease agr eement for the tower site, county’s ex hi bi t 2 as t he fi rst amen dmen t t o t he lease agreement, cou nty’s ex hi bi t 3 as the se cond amendm ent to the lease ag re em en t, c oun ty ’s ex h i b i t 4 as t he t hird a mendment t o t he lea se ag r ee men t , an d c o un t y’s ex hibit4

5 a s th e a ss i gn men t of th e l ea se ag re em en t. At th e h ea ri n g, i n addi ti on to the testim

onies prese

nted , num erous exh i bi ts were ad m i tted i n to evi dence. Re sp on den

t’s ex h i b i ts 1, 2, 3, and 4 weread

m i tted i n to ev i den ce , a s w er e c oun

ty ’s ex h i b i ts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. County’s ex hibi t 6, a cert if

ie d copy of the rel

evan t pages of the tract index per t aining to the two parcels i

n questi on, was al so presented and the trial court to ok judici al

notice of that document. The trial court al so took

jud icia l no t ice o f pe t it io ne r ’s ex hibit 1, t he t ax sa le certif i cate. Of re levance t o t his app eal, t he afo re mentio ned e xhibits pr ovid ed t he fo llowing informat ion. Respo ndent’s exhi

bi ts 1, 3, and 4, which were record s f rom the assess or’s offi

ce, provided l

egal des cr ipt ions of the two parcels i n questi on. Parcel 060wa s des cri b ed on b oth the pa rce l i nf orm ati on report(respondent’s ex hi bi t 3) and the propert y record card (respo n de n t’ s exh ibit 1) as “IM PROV EMENTS ON T OWE R SIT E; PART E 1/2 NE PILOT GROVE 6-6 09-A 09 06 200- 004.” The parcel

in form ation report for parcel 060 contain ed onl y a n asse ssment for an impro vement and no as ses sm

en t for an y l and. In addi tion , t h e pr op er t y reco rd car d co nt ained a pict ur e o f the co mmunicatio ns t o we r it se lf. Par ce l 062wa s des cri

be d i n th e p arc el i nf orm ati on repo rt (resp ondent ’s ex hibit 4) as “4 67 X 467 TOWER SITE - PLUS 12 X 252 ACCESS: PT S 1/2 E 1/2 NE PI LOT GROVE 6- 6. ” T he pa r ce l info r mat io n r ep o r t fo rpa r ce l 06 2 c o nt ain ed o nly an ass essmen

t for f arm land and no assess

me nt for any im provemen ts on the lan

d. The take notice that respondent receiv ed (resp ondent ’s ex hibit 2) contained a le gal descri ption of parcel

060 that was essential ly

ide ntica l to t he o ne co nt ain ed in t he as se ss o r ’s r ec o r ds . T he sa me le gal descri ption was provi

ded i n the tax sa le certif i cate that peti

tion er had rec ei

ve d (peti tion er’s ex hi bi t 1). The co unt y’s exhibits 1 t hro ugh 5 were certif ie d copies of the documents relative to t he lease5

agr eement on t he pr op er t y. All of the do cument s had been r eco rd ed in Ha nco ck C ou nt y within t he sa me year that the d

ocum en ts ha d be en ex ecuted . The ini

tial lease agr eement (co unty’s exh ibit 1) was entered i n to in F ebruar y of 1985 bet ween resp ondent ’s pr ed ec es so r s a nd a c o mmu nic at io ns co mp an y. In t he ag r ee men t , r es po nd en t ’s pr ed ec es so rlea se d a n a pp r o xim atel y 5 acret ra ct of land t o t he co mmunicatio ns co mpany for a pe rio d o f 25 year s, p re sumably for t he co nst ru ct ion and ope rati on of a t ow er site . T he ag re ement gave t he co mmunicatio ns co mpany an o pt ion t o e xt end the le ase f or an addi tional 25 yea rs . A ttach ed to t he init ial le as e a gr ee men t wa s a sp ec ific le gal descri ption of the real pr operty that was subj ect to the le as e. I n the first amendment to the lease agr eement (co unty’s ex hibit 2) , e nt er ed int o in No vember o f 198 6, re spo ndent ’s pr ede ces so rs a nd t he co mmunicati on s co mpany am ended the l

ease agreem

ent to pr ovide

that t he c ommunicat ions c omp any wo uld be
r es po nsib le for “ad val

orem taxes levi

ed on and att ributable to any im pro vem ents ins t alled o n t he [p]re mises” b y t he co mmu nications com pany . The copy of

the tract index (county ’s ex hi bi t 6) sho we d t ha t ne xt t o ea ch en t ry in t he index r elat ive to t he le ase, a han dwritten notation was pl

aced re gar ding t he nat ur e o f each d oc ument th at h ad b een re corde d. F or e x am

pl e, n ex t to the i nde x entry f orthe ini tial l ease agreement, the not ation, “[l]ease ag r ee . ” w as wr it t en in small curs ive lett er s. T he entries f ort he amend ments t o t he lease agr eement and f or the as si gnm en t of the l eas e agre em

en t were f oll owed b y si m i l ar notation s i

ndi cati ng th at the l eas e agre em

en t had be en am ended or as si

gne d. At t he concl

usi on of the hea

rin g, t he t r ial c o ur t fo un d in fav o ro f r es po nd en t an d h eld t ha t if petitioner pr o ce ed ed fo rwa r d t o o bt ain a t ax de ed, he wo uld o nly receive ri gh ts i n th e i m pr ov em en ts on th e s i te (t he co mmunicatio ns t ow er ) a nd wo uld no t re ceive ri ghts to the un derl y i ng g round . In re aching that conclusi

on, the trial

court noted that sufficient not ice had been p ro vided in t he r elevant docum en ts t o a ppr ise pe t itio ner t hat he was pur chas ing right s o nly i n t he impro vement on t he sit e and6

not righ ts in the underl

yi ng ground i

tself . The trial

cour t co mment ed t ha t it “w o uld be emine nt ly un fair to the

un de rl y i ng l an dow ne r wh o ha [d] a s ep ara

te ta x i de nti f i ca ti on n um be r on the grou nd on t he und er lyi

ng si te to have the underl

yi ng ground sold a

way from hi m a t t ax sal e.” Th e tri al court comm ented further that if

the p et itio ner be lieved t hat t he de scr ipt ions c ont ained in t he r elevant docum en ts ga v e h i m a ri gh t to a d ec l arati on of a s al e i n er ror, th at p eti

ti on er wou l d h av e th e ri gh t to request that remedy

and the county

could def endan t again st that request if

it saw f i t, but that w asnot t he is sue t h at h ad

b een pr es en ted to th e tr i al cou rt a t th at ti me. Pe ti ti on er f i l ed a m oti on to recon sider, whi

ch wa s s ub se qu en t ly

denied . I n denying t he mot ion t o r eco nsider , t he t rial co ur t fou nd that bot h the prior o rder and the orderde nying t he mo t io n t o r ec o nsid er we r e fin al a nd ap pe ala ble orders. P eti

tion er brough t thi s ap peal to chal l enge th e tri al

court’s rul i ng.
AN AL YSIS On appe al, pe

ti ti oner argu es t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in find ing t ha t pe t it io ne rwo uld o nly acqu i re an i n terest i n th e i m pr ov em en t (th e c om m un i ca ti on s to wer) on

th e p rop er

ty in ques t ion and not an i ntere st i n the groun

d i tself . Peti tion er as sertsthat he re aso na bl y b elie ved that he was purch asing an

i ntere st i n the groun

d i tself at the tax

sal e b eca use a leas ehold

of th i s nature is no t subj ect t o pr o pe r t y t ax es an d b ec au se t he co mmun ica t io ns t o we ris p er so na l pr o pe r t y t ha t is also n ot subj ect to propert y taxes. Responden t and the county argue that the trial cou rt ’s ruli

ng was proper and sho uld be af

fi rmed. Res

pondent asserts that it i s not to bl am e for how the asses sor divi ded up t he tax b i l l , that the

taxe s on th

e groun d were alw ay s paid, and that the trial court did wh

at was required as a matter o f f

airness . The co unt y asser t s t hat a lease hold of t his nat ur e may be taxed under I llino is la w, that the comm

unications tower is a f

ix ture t hat al so may

be taxed un

der Illinois law, and that it s hould have b een c l ea r to peti ti one r f rom the ch ai n of ti tl e that the p rope

rty i n q ue sti on7

i n v ol v ed a l ea se h ol d i n terest. Bef ore r ea ch ing t he mer it s o f t he se as se r t io ns, we mus t firs t de t er mi ne w het her we ha ve j urisd i cti on to hear thi s ap peal . A l th oug h n on e of th e p ar ti es h av e a rgue d a l ack of appe l l ate jurisd ictio n, this

court has a duty

to determi

ne if j urisdi

ction to heart his app eal exist s and to dism iss t his appe al

i f j urisd i cti on is la cki ng. See Ar ch er Da nie ls Mi dl an d C o. v . B ar

th , 103 Ill . 2d 536, 539, 470 N.E.2d 290, 292 ( 1984) . T he ap pea l in this cas e wa s bro ught pu rs ua n t to Su pr eme Co ur t Ru le 301, which allows for an appeal f rom a fi nal judgm ent in a ci vil case as a ma t t er o f r igh t . 15 5 I ll. 2d R. 30 1. A fina l an d a pp ea lab le ju dg men t fo rpu r po se s o f Ru le 30 1 is one t hat fixes the right s o f the parties ab sol

ute l y an d f i na l l y i n th e l i ti ga ti on a nd term i na testhe li ti ga ti on on th e m eri ts so t hat if the judg ment is a ffir med , t he o nly thi ng l ef t to do is to proce ed wi

th the ex ecuti on of the j udgm

en t. In re Marriage

of Schwi eger , 379 Ill . App. 3d 687, 689, 883 N.E.2d 55 6, 55 8 ( 20 08 ) . A ju dg men t is not a f i na l and app eal

ab l e j udgm

en t whe re the tria l courthas retai

ned j urisd i cti on to h ea r m atte rs of substantial

co nt r o ve r sy inthe c ase . Schw ie ger , 3 79 I ll. App. 3d a t 689 , 8 83 N .E .2 d at 558 . T he
meref ac t th at a trial cou rt m akes a f i n di n g th at an order is

appealabl

e does not make that order appe alab l e. Cobl e v. Chi

cago Heal th Cl ub, Inc. , 53 Ill . App. 3d 1019, 1020, 369 N.E. 2d 188, 189 (1977) (a pplied in t he contex t of a s peci al f i ndi ng m ade p ursuan t to suprem

e court rul

e 304 ). Wh

ere i ss ue s r em ai n to b e d ec i de d, th

e j udg men t i s n ot a fi nal one and an appeal m

ay n ot be taken, unless ot herwise authorized

by the suprem

e court r ule s. See Hawes v. L uhr Brothers, Inc. , 212 Ill . 2d 93, 106, 81 6 N.E.2d

345, 35 3 (200 4). In the pre sent c as e, th

e i ss ueon a ppe al i nv ol ve s on l y the tri al cou r t ’s r ulin g on

a m oti on bro ught durin

g the course of a taxdee d pr oc eed ing. T his app eal do es no t involve t he tr ial cou rt ’s ul ti mate ruli ng granti ng or deny

in g the tax deed or declari ng a sal e i n error. The t rial

cour t recogniz ed

as m uch wh en i t noted tha

t those m atters s til l rem ai ne d. Thus, d espite t he tr ial cou rt ’s8

st at ement t o t he co nt r ar y, t he o r de r s in q ue st io n w er e n o t “fina l jud gme nt s, ” a s s pe cifie d in Su pr eme CourtRul e 301, which woul d provide for an appea

l as a m atter of ri ght. See Co ble , 53 Ill . App. 3d at 1020, 369 N.E.2d at 1 89. Fu rth erm ore, no oth

er b as i s h asbe en sugge ste d that w oul

d al l owf or t he i ns tan t ap pe al . Th

i s c ourt h

asno jurisd

i cti on to hear this a

ppe al and t his app eal must be dis mi ssed. See A

rch er D an i els M i dl an d C o. , 103 Ill . 2d at 539, 470 N. E.2d at 292 ; Schwieger , 379 Ill. App. 3d at 689 , 88 3 N. E. 2d at 559 ; Hawes , 212 Ill . 2d at 106, 816 N. E.2d at 353. Fo r t he fo re go ing re aso ns, w e dismiss t his app eal for lack o f jurisdict ion. Appeal dis mi ssed. LYTTON and SCHMIDT, J. J. concurri ng.