2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U 

No. 2-21-0150 

Order filed March 6, 2023 

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent 

except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(l).

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

RUNJUN WANG, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court 

) of Lake County. 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 19-MR-661 

) 

ILLINOIS PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ) 

BOARD, LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF ) 

REVIEW, and LAKE COUNTY ) 

TREASURER, ) Honorable 

) Joseph V. Salvi, 

Defendants-Appellees. ) Judge Presiding. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE HUDSON delivered the judgment of the court. 

Presiding Justice McLaren and Justice Jorgensen concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board’s decision to reduce the total assessed 

value of the subject property by $20,039 was not against the manifest weight of the 

evidence.

¶ 2 I. INTRODUCTION

¶ 3 Plaintiff, Runjun Wang, appeals pro se from the judgment of the circuit court of Lake 

County, which affirmed on administrative review a decision of defendant, the Illinois Property Tax 

Appeal Board (PTAB). For the 2016 tax year, the PTAB reduced the total assessed value of the 
2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U 

- 2 - 

subject property (which includes plaintiff’s residence) by $20,039. Plaintiff argues that the 

assessed value of the subject property should have been reduced by $33,080. For the reasons set 

forth below, we affirm.1

¶ 4 II. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 We set forth the following background information to facilitate an understanding of this 

appeal. The subject property is located at 5725 Hampton Drive, Long Grove, Vernon Township, 

Lake County, Illinois. Plaintiff purchased the subject property in 2009 for $490,000. The subject 

property is a 44,867 square-foot lot which includes a two-story, single-family dwelling of brick 

exterior construction built in 1987. The dwelling contains 3692 square feet of living space with 

two full bathrooms, two half bathrooms, a partially finished basement, central air conditioning, a 

fireplace, and an attached garage of 792 square feet. In 2016, the subject property’s land value was 

assessed at $18,569 and its improvement value was assessed at $174,680, for a total assessed value 

of $193,249. Plaintiff appealed to defendant, the Lake County Board of Review (Board), seeking 

a reduction of her assessment for the 2016 tax year. Following a hearing, the Board maintained the 

assessed value of the land at $18,569, but reduced the assessed value of the improvement to 

$168,080. Thus, the Board fixed the total assessed value of the subject property at $186,649, a 

reduction of $6600. This resulted in an assessment per square foot of living area of $45.53 

($168,080/3692). 

1 Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Sanction and Strike” appellees’ briefs. We took the motion 

with the case. In her motion, plaintiff claims that appellees’ briefs are inaccurate and incomplete 

in several respects. Plaintiff argues that we should therefore strike portions of appellees’ briefs and 

impose sanctions against them. Having reviewed appellees’ briefs, we deny plaintiff’s motion. 
2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U 

- 3 - 

¶ 6 A. PTAB Proceedings 

¶ 7 Plaintiff appealed the Board’s final assessment to the PTAB. Plaintiff did not contest the 

Board’s finding of the subject property’s land assessment. However, she requested a reduction of 

$33,080 (from $168,080 to $135,000) with respect to the Board’s finding of the subject property’s 

improvement assessment. Given the requested reduction, the assessment per square foot of living 

area would be $36.57 ($135,000/3692). Plaintiff based her appeal on evidence of “comparable 

sales,” “assessment equity,” and a “contention of law.” In support of her appeal, plaintiff submitted 

information on three comparable properties. Two of those properties are located in the same 

neighborhood code as the subject property (as defined by the local assessor) and all three are within 

four blocks of the subject property. Plaintiff’s three comparable properties are on lots ranging in 

size from 20,078 to 45,738 square feet. The comparable properties are improved with two-story, 

single-family dwellings of brick or wood-siding exterior construction. The dwellings have living 

areas ranging from 3530 to 4250 square feet, and are from 24 to 32 years old. Features of the 

comparable properties include basements (two of which have finished areas), central air 

conditioning, one or two fireplaces, and garages ranging in size from 703 to 851 square feet. The 

comparable properties were sold between March 2014 and July 2016 for prices ranging from 

$470,000 to $580,000, or $129.83 to $139.86 per square foot of living area. The comparable

properties have improvement assessments ranging from $135,225 to $156,198, or $36.75 to $41.08 

per square foot of living area.2 In addition to the information on the comparable properties, plaintiff 

2 We calculated the assessment per square foot of living area by dividing the improvement 

assessment by the square feet of living area. In its final administrative decision, the PTAB 

calculated that the assessment per square foot of living area for plaintiff’s three comparable 
2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U 

- 4 - 

submitted photographs of portions of the subject property which, she asserted, needed repair, 

photographs of the interiors of the comparable properties, and a brief contending an error in the 

subject property’s assessment in 2011. 

¶ 8 In response, the Board submitted a document entitled “Board of Review—Notes on 

Appeal,” disclosing the total assessment of the subject property at $186,649. The Board also 

submitted information on four equity comparable properties located within 0.6 miles of the subject 

property and within the same neighborhood code as the subject property. The four equity 

comparable properties are on lots ranging in size from 43,560 to 53,579 square feet. The four 

equity comparable properties are improved with two-story, single-family dwellings of brick or 

wood-siding exterior construction. The dwellings have living areas ranging from 3630 to 4250 

square feet and were built in 1986 or 1987. The features of the four equity comparable properties 

include basements (two with finished areas), central air conditioning, one to three fireplaces, and 

garages ranging in size from 638 to 792 square feet of building area. The four equity comparable

properties have improvement assessments ranging from $155,716 to $175,451, or from $42.29 to 

$47.78 per square foot of living area. 

¶ 9 Additionally, the Board submitted information on four comparable property sales located 

within 0.232 miles of the subject property and within the same neighborhood code as the subject 

property. The sales comparable properties are on lots ranging in size from 43,560 to 45,738 square 

feet and are improved with two-story, single-family dwellings of brick or wood-siding exterior 

construction. The dwellings range in size from 3460 to 3699 square feet of living area and were 

properties ranged from $36.15 to $38.41 per square foot. Based on the evidence of record, it is 

unclear how the PTAB arrived at those figures. 
2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U 

- 5 - 

constructed between 1986 and 1990. Features of the four sales comparable properties include 

basements (three with finished areas), central air conditioning, one to three fireplaces, and garages 

ranging in size from 750 to 932 square feet of building area. The four sales comparable properties 

have improvement assessments ranging from $151,620 to $175,078, or from $43.14 to $49.51 per 

square foot of living area. The four sales comparable properties were sold between August 2014 

and March 2017 for prices ranging from $625,000 to $687,500 or between $168.96 and $195.53 

per square foot of living area. 

¶ 10 Plaintiff submitted rebuttal evidence contesting the similarities of the Board’s comparable 

properties. In addition, plaintiff submitted information on additional properties not previously 

submitted.

¶ 11 A hearing on plaintiff’s appeal was held on April 8, 2019, before Sasha Jonic, an 

administrative law judge (ALJ) for the PTAB. Plaintiff appeared on her own behalf at the hearing 

with two witnesses. John Paslawsky appeared on behalf of the Board. 

¶ 12 At the hearing, plaintiff argued that the subject property is inferior to the comparable 

properties due to its state of disrepair as well as the fact that it is situated in close proximity to 

high-voltage electrical power lines. Plaintiff also complained that there was an erroneous entry on 

the subject property’s record card. The entry in question reads “2011 add F/B, 1378 SF 1/2 bath, 

and A/C.”3

 Plaintiff stated, however, that she did not “add” a finished basement, a half bath, or 

air conditioning to her residence in 2011. Rather, these features existed when she purchased the 

3 The subject property’s record card has several other notations, including one providing 

that in 2016, the size of plaintiff’s finished basement was changed from 1378 square feet to 919 

square feet.
2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U 

- 6 - 

subject property in 2009. Plaintiff contended that after the alleged erroneous entry on the subject 

property’s record card, her overall taxes increased by approximately 25%, which has carried 

forward to the present time and caused her taxes to increase from 2011 through 2016. Plaintiff 

stated that she did not discover the “error” on the subject property’s record card until 2016 and she 

did not appeal any other year’s assessment prior to 2016. Based on this evidence, plaintiff 

requested a reduction in the subject property’s total assessment by 25% as well as a “refund” of 

the extra taxes she paid in prior years.

¶ 13 Paslawsky testified that the only error on the subject property’s record card was the size of 

the finished basement, which was duly corrected in 2016. Paslawsky also testified that the notation 

on the subject property’s record card in 2011 regarding the finished basement, half bath, and air 

conditioning was made after the assessor discovered that these features were on the multiple listing 

service (MLS) sheet for the subject property but were not already recorded on the subject 

property’s record card. Finally, Paslawsky testified that the increase in the subject property’s 

overall taxes may be due to many other factors unrelated to the aforementioned entry on the subject 

property’s record card.

¶ 14 Plaintiff attempted to introduce new evidence during the hearing, to which Paslawsky 

objected. During the hearing, Paslawsky, on behalf of the Board, offered to reduce the subject 

property’s total assessment to $166,610, and prepared a stipulation reflecting said reduction. 

Plaintiff rejected the offer.

¶ 15 B. PTAB Decision

¶ 16 On May 21, 2019, the PTAB issued a final administrative decision in plaintiff’s case. At 

the outset, the Board noted that plaintiff submitted rebuttal evidence (1) contesting the similarities 

of the Board’s comparable properties to the subject property and (2) listing additional properties 
2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U 

- 7 - 

not previously submitted. The PTAB concluded that its rules precluded plaintiff from submitting 

new evidence on rebuttal. See 86 Ill. Admin. Code § 1910.66(c) (2019). Additionally, the PTAB 

observed that at the hearing before the ALJ, plaintiff attempted to introduce evidentiary documents 

which were not included with her original submission, to which the Board objected. The PTAB 

sustained the Board’s objection, noting that its rules preclude a party to an appeal from introducing 

new evidence at a hearing. See 86 Ill. Admin. Code § 1910.67(k)(1) (2017).

¶ 17 Turning to the merits, the PTAB first addressed plaintiff’s claim of an assessment inequity.

The PTAB noted that the parties submitted a total of seven suggested comparable properties for 

consideration. The PTAB noted that the comparable properties had varying degrees of similarity 

to the subject property. The PTAB found that plaintiff’s comparable properties one and two (the 

properties that were located in the same neighborhood code as the subject property) and the 

Board’s four equity comparable properties constituted the best evidence of assessment equity

because they are most similar to the subject property in location, dwelling size, lot size, design, 

and features. The PTAB noted that the comparable properties have improvement assessments 

ranging from $135,225 to $175,451, or from $37.35 to $47.78 per square foot of living area. The 

PTAB observed that the subject property’s improvement assessment of $168,080, or $45.53 per 

square foot of living area, was at the higher end of the range established by the most similar equity 

comparable properties of record. After considering the error regarding the square footage of the 

subject property’s finished basement and after adjustments for differences between the subject 

property and the equity comparable properties, the PTAB concluded that a reduction in the subject 

property’s assessment was justified due to an assessment inequity. Accordingly, the PTAB reduced

the improvement assessment on the subject property to $148,041, but maintained the assessed 
2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U 

- 8 - 

value of the land at $18,569. This resulted in a total assessed value of the subject property of 

$166,610, a reduction of $20,039 from the total assessed value of $186,649 fixed by the Board. 

¶ 18 The PTAB also addressed plaintiff’s contention that the subject property was overvalued 

based on comparable sales. The PTAB found that some of the sales comparable properties 

submitted by the parties were not reflective of market value because (1) the sales dates were too 

distant in time to the subject property’s assessment date of January 1, 2016, and (2) features of the 

subject property and those of some of the sales comparable properties were dissimilar. The PTAB 

determined that the best evidence of market value was plaintiff’s comparable number two and the 

Board’s sales comparable property numbers two and four. The PTAB found that these three 

properties are the most similar to the subject property in location, lot size, dwelling size, age, 

design, and features. Those three properties sold between July 2015 and September 2016 for prices 

ranging from $493,700 to $687,500, or $139.86 to $195.53 per square foot of living area. The 

PTAB concluded that the subject property’s reduced total assessed value of $166,610, which, 

according to the PTAB, reflected an estimated market value of approximately $499,880, or 

$136.73 per square foot of living area, is justified considering its inferior condition when compared 

to the most similar sales comparable properties and being in close proximity to high-voltage power 

lines.4

 After considering the assessment reduction granted to the subject property based on equity 

considerations, the PTAB found no further reduction in the subject property’s assessment was 

warranted based on comparable sales.

4 Based on the PTAB’s estimate of the market value of the subject property, we calculate 

the market value per square foot of living area as $135.40 ($499,880/3692). 
2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U 

- 9 - 

¶ 19 Lastly, the PTAB noted that its jurisdiction is limited to accepting an appeal from a decision 

of a county board of review pertaining to the assessment of real property. Thus, it had no 

jurisdiction over the amount of property taxes extended from 2011 through 2015. 86 Ill. Admin. 

Code § 1910.10(f) (2019) (providing that the PTAB is without jurisdiction to determine the tax 

rate, the amount of a tax bill, or the exemption of real property from taxation). 

¶ 20 C. Trial Court Proceedings 

¶ 21 Plaintiff filed a complaint for review of the PTAB’s final administrative decision in the 

circuit court of Lake County. Subsequent to filing her complaint, plaintiff filed numerous motions 

in the trial court. In an order dated September 30, 2020, the trial court found that plaintiff’s prior 

motions were not well grounded in fact or existing law. The court therefore enjoined plaintiff or 

anyone acting on her behalf from submitting further filings in the case without first obtaining leave 

of court. Additionally, while plaintiff’s case was pending in the trial court, she filed two appeals 

to this court, both of which were dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Wang v. Illinois 

Property Tax Appeal Board, No. 2-20-0747 (2021); Wang v. Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board, 

No. 2-20-0121 (2020). Thereafter, the PTAB, the Board, and defendant Lake County Treasurer 

(Treasurer) filed briefs in response to plaintiff’s complaint for administrative review. On January 

19, 2021, the trial court entered an order denying plaintiff’s complaint, concluding that the final 

administrative decision of the PTAB was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence or 

contrary to law. In the same order, the trial court reiterated that plaintiff continuously filed motions 

that had no basis in law or fact and that she continuously attempted to violate the court order 

requiring her to seek leave of court for any additional filings. Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice 

of appeal to this court, which, as amended, listed 16 separate circuit court orders she was appealing. 

¶ 22 III. ANALYSIS
2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U 

- 10 - 

¶ 23 At the outset, we note that plaintiff is self represented. It is well established that “pro se

litigants are presumed to have full knowledge of applicable court rules and procedures and must 

comply with the same rules and procedures as would be required of litigants represented by 

attorneys.” JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Associates v. Jones, 2019 IL App (1st) 181909, ¶ 29; 

In re Estate of Pellico, 394 Ill. App. 3d 1052, 1067 (2009). Among these rules and procedures are 

those contained in Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341, which sets forth the form and content 

requirements of appellate briefs. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341 (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Illinois Supreme Court Rule 

341(h)(6) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) requires an appellant to provide a statement of facts “which shall 

contain the facts necessary to an understanding of the case, stated accurately and fairly without

argument or comment, and with appropriate references to the pages of the record on appeal.” The 

statement of facts in plaintiff’s opening brief fails to provide this court with an understanding of 

the case. It consists largely of rambling statements that lack clarity. It is also riddled with 

unnecessary argument and comment. We further observe that Illinois Supreme Court Rule 

341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) requires an appellant to provide argument “which shall contain the 

contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities *** relied 

on.” In her appellate brief, plaintiff purports to raise 20 “issues.” However, it is difficult to discern

the precise nature of many of the contentions of error plaintiff purports to raise. This is principally

because plaintiff’s arguments are disorganized and consist largely of stream-of-consciousness 

writings that are confusing, vague, repetitive, conclusory, and often lack citation to relevant 

authority. 

¶ 24 We are mindful of the challenges plaintiff faces in representing herself on appeal. 

Nevertheless, compliance with Rule 341 is not an inconsequential matter. The rules of our supreme 

court “are not aspirational. They are not suggestions. They have the force of law, and the 
2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U 

- 11 - 

presumption must be that they will be obeyed and enforced as written.” Bright v. Dicke, 166 Ill. 

2d 204, 210 (1995). As a reviewing court, we are entitled to have the issues clearly defined with 

pertinent authority cited. McCann v. Dart, 2015 IL App (1st) 141291, ¶ 15. An appellant cannot 

expect a reviewing court to develop arguments and research issues on his or her behalf. See 

Northwestern Memorial Hospital v. Sharif, 2014 IL App (1st) 133008, ¶ 20. Where an appellant’s 

brief fails to comply with the supreme court rules, a reviewing court has the inherent authority to 

strike the brief and dismiss the appeal. Epstein v. Galuska, 362 Ill. App. 3d 36, 42 (2005). That 

said, we have the benefit of a cogent appellee brief from the PTAB and another from the Board 

and the Treasurer. Based on appellees’ briefs, we have been provided with the facts necessary for 

an understanding of the case and can discern, generally, plaintiff’s assignments of error. Thus, 

despite the deficiencies in plaintiff’s brief, we will address the merits of the PTAB’s May 21, 2019, 

final administrative decision. See Twardowski v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., 321 Ill. 

App. 3d 509, 511 (2001) (opting to address merits despite appellant’s failure to comply with the 

supreme court rules). 

¶ 25 A. Standard of Review

¶ 26 Final administrative decisions of the PTAB are subject to review under the provisions of 

the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2018)). 35 ILCS 200/16-195 

(West 2018). In an action for administrative review, it is the decision of the agency, rather than the 

trial court, that we review. Peacock v. Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board, 339 Ill. App. 3d 1060, 

1068 (2003); Brazas v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 339 Ill. App. 3d 978, 981 (2003). As such, we 

are limited to considering the evidence submitted to the administrative agency and may not 

consider evidence submitted to the trial court. Marconi v. Chicago Heights Police Pension Board, 

225 Ill. 2d 497, 532 (2006); Lipscomb v. Housing Authority of County of Cook, 2015 IL App (1st) 
2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U 

- 12 - 

142793, ¶ 11. Under the Administrative Review Law, judicial review of agency decisions extends 

to all questions of law and fact presented by the record. 735 ILCS 5/3-110 (West 2018); Du Page 

County Board of Review v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 284 Ill. App. 3d 649, 652 (1996). The 

applicable standard of review depends on whether the administrative decision presents a question 

of fact, a question of law, or a mixed question of fact and law. Cinkus v. Village of Stickney 

Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200, 210 (2008); Wortham v. City of Chicago 

Department of Administrative Hearings, 2015 IL App (1st) 131735, ¶ 13. 

¶ 27 An administrative agency’s factual findings are deemed prima facie true and correct. 

Du Page County Board of Review, 284 Ill. App. 3d at 652-53. Assigning weight to evidence and 

assessing the credibility of witnesses is primarily for the agency hearing the matter. King v. Justice 

Party, 284 Ill. App. 3d 886, 888 (1996). Therefore, in considering an agency’s factual findings, a 

reviewing court does not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the agency. 

Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 210. The reviewing court is limited to considering whether the agency’s 

factual findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 210; Du Page 

County Board of Review, 284 Ill. App. 3d at 652-53. A finding of fact is against the manifest 

weight of the evidence only if an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent. Cook County Board of 

Review v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 403 Ill. App. 3d 139, 143 (2010); Roti v. LTD Commodities, 

355 Ill. App. 3d 1039, 1051 (2005). 

¶ 28 An agency’s conclusions on questions of law, however, are not binding on a reviewing

court. Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 210. Consequently, review of legal issues is de novo. Du Page County 

Board of Review, 284 Ill. App. 3d at 653. A mixed question of fact and law presents a situation in 

which the historical facts are established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether 

the facts satisfy the statutory standard, or, in other words, whether the rule of law as applied to the 
2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U 

- 13 - 

established facts is or is not violated. Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 211. In addressing a mixed question of 

fact and law, a reviewing court considers whether the agency’s decision is clearly erroneous. 

Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 210. A decision is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is left with the 

definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 210. 

¶ 29 B. The PTAB Decision

¶ 30 As noted earlier, plaintiff purports to raise 20 “issues” on appeal. Many of plaintiff’s 

assignments of error concern rulings made by the trial court. As noted earlier, however, in an action 

for administrative review, it is the decision of the agency, rather than the trial court, that we review. 

Peacock, 339 Ill. App. 3d at 1068; Brazas, 339 Ill. App. 3d at 981. 

¶ 31 With respect to the PTAB’s final administrative decision, plaintiff contends that the “root 

cause” of the “erroneous increase” in the assessment of the subject property is the “false upgrade 

notes added by [the] assessor in 2011.” According to plaintiff, this alleged error continued through 

2016, thereby causing her property taxes to rise sharply. The PTAB’s finding of the assessed value 

of a particular property is a question of fact. West Loop Associates, LLC v. Property Tax Appeal 

Board, 2017 IL App (1st) 151998, ¶ 59; Kraft Foods, Inc. v. Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board, 

2013 IL App (2d) 121031, ¶ 51; Du Page County Board of Review, 284 Ill. App. 3d at 653-54. 

Hence, the PTAB’s decision will not be disturbed unless it is against the manifest weight of the 

evidence. Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 210; Du Page County Board of Review, 284 Ill. App. 3d at 652-

53. As noted above, a finding of fact is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if an 

opposite conclusion is clearly apparent. Cook County Board of Review, 403 Ill. App. 3d at 143; 

Roti, 355 Ill. App. 3d at 1051. 

¶ 32 Applying this deferential standard, we cannot conclude that the PTAB’s finding of the 

assessed value of the subject property was against the manifest weight of the evidence. In this 
2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U 

- 14 - 

regard, we observe that both plaintiff and the Board presented evidence of comparable properties 

to support their respective property assessment claims. In addition, both parties appeared before 

the PTAB’s ALJ and argued their respective positions. As such, the PTAB was required to assess 

the credibility of the witnesses and weigh the evidence. King, 284 Ill. App. 3d at 888. In doing so, 

the PTAB noted that the parties submitted a total of seven suggested equity comparable properties 

for consideration with varying degrees of similarity to the subject property. The PTAB found that 

two of plaintiff’s comparable properties and the Board’s four equity comparable properties 

constituted the best evidence of assessment equity because they were the most similar to the subject 

property in location, dwelling size, lot size, design, and features. The PTAB then compared the 

improvement assessments on the six properties and observed that the subject property’s 

improvement assessment of $168,080, or $45.53 per square foot of living area, was at the higher 

end of the range established by the most similar equity comparable properties of record. After 

considering the error regarding the square footage of the subject property’s finished basement and 

adjusting for differences between the subject property and the comparable properties, the PTAB 

concluded that a reduction in the subject property’s assessment was justified due to an assessment 

inequity. To this end, the PTAB reduced the improvement assessment on the subject property to 

$148,041, or $40.10 per square foot of living area ($148,041/3692). The PTAB maintained the 

assessed value of the land at $18,659. The PTAB’s changes resulted in a total assessed value of 

the subject property of $166,610, a reduction of $20,039 from the total assessed value fixed by the 

Board. As a result of the improvement assessment fixed by the PTAB, the subject property went 

from being at the higher end of the range established by the most similar comparable properties to 

being at the lower end of the range. Because the PTAB articulated rational reasons for making its 

decision, we cannot say that a conclusion opposite that of the PTAB is clearly apparent. 
2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U 

- 15 - 

¶ 33 The PTAB also addressed, on alternative grounds, whether plaintiff’s property was 

overvalued. The PTAB determined that the best evidence of market value was a mix of properties 

consisting of one of plaintiff’s comparable properties and two of the Board’s sales comparable 

properties. The PTAB found that these three properties were the most similar to the subject 

property in location, lot size, dwelling size, age, design, and features. Those three properties sold 

between July 2015 and September 2016 for prices ranging from $493,700 to $687,500, or $139.86 

to $195.53 per square foot of living area. The PTAB concluded that the subject property’s reduced 

total assessment of $166,610, which, according to the PTAB, reflected an estimated market value 

of approximately $499,880, or $136.73 per square foot of living area, was justified considering its 

inferior condition when compared to the most similar sales comparable properties and being in 

close proximity to high-voltage power lines.5 After considering the assessment reduction granted 

to the subject property based on equity considerations, the PTAB found no further reduction in the 

subject property’s assessment was warranted based on comparable sales. Again, given that the 

PTAB set forth rational reasons for making its decision, we cannot say that a conclusion opposite 

that of the PTAB is clearly apparent.

¶ 34 As noted above, the gravamen of plaintiff’s argument below was that there was an “error” 

in the subject property’s record card in 2011 and that this “error” continued through 2016, which 

caused an increase in plaintiff’s property taxes. The note in question reads “2011 add F/B, 1378 

SF 1/2 bath, and A/C.” At the hearing before the PTAB, plaintiff interpreted the note to mean that, 

5 As noted earlier, based on the PTAB’s estimate of the market value of the subject 

property, we calculate the market value per square foot of living area to be $135.40 

($499,880/3692). 
2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U 

- 16 - 

in 2011, she finished the basement of her home, added a half bath, and installed air conditioning. 

Paslawsky contested plaintiff’s interpretation. He testified that the note was made after the assessor 

discovered that these features were listed on the MLS sheet for the subject property but were not 

already included on the subject property’s record card. On appeal, plaintiff continues to insist that 

she is entitled to a further reduction in the assessed value of the subject property because the 

assessor “added” to the property record card “untrue information to increase” her tax assessment 

by “25.24% *** for *** 2011,” which thereby affected the annual amount she paid in taxes. She 

further asserts that she established at the hearing before the PTAB that she “never added” the 

features listed in the notation. However, nothing in the record supports plaintiff’s interpretation 

that the notation meant that she added the finished basement, half bath, and air conditioning to the 

subject property. Furthermore, we find no indication in the record to establish that the PTAB 

construed the notation to mean that plaintiff herself added a finished basement, a half bath, and air 

conditioning to the subject property in 2011. Indeed, at the hearing before the PTAB, the ALJ 

stated that he was not reading the notation to mean that plaintiff added the additional features. 

Rather, the ALJ interpreted the notation to mean that the assessor “didn’t have [those features] on 

the record before that, but [he or she] found out about it.” Quite simply, plaintiff’s claim that the 

2011 notation on the subject property’s record card constituted an “error” finds no support in the 

record. As such, she is not entitled to relief on this basis. 

¶ 35 IV. CONCLUSION

¶ 36 For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County, 

which affirmed the final administrative order of the PTAB. 

¶ 37 Affirmed.