1 NOTICE Decision fi led 02/ 10/11. The text of this decision may be changed or correct ed prior

to t he fi ling of a Peti tio n for

Rehearing o r th e disposit ion of

the same. NO. 5-09-0675 I N THE AP PE LLA TE C O U R T O F IL LIN O IS

FI FTH DI STRI CT
HARVE ST CHURCH OF OUR L ORD, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit

Court of Plaintiff -Appell ee, ) St. Clair County. ) v. ) No. 07-L-89 ) TH E C ITY O F E AST ST . LO UIS, ILLINO IS, ) Ho nora ble ) Lloyd A. Cuet o, De fend ant-Ap pellan t. ) Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE WEX STTEN deliver ed the j udgment of the court , with opi nion. Presiding Justice Chapman and Justice Goldenhersh concurred in the judgment and opinion. O P I N I O N The plaintiff

, Harves t Church of Our Lord, filed an action ag ainstthe defe ndant, t he City of East St . Louis , I lli nois (t he City), for the wrongfuldemolition of pr operty, pursuant to secti on 1-4-7 of t

he Il linoi s Municipal Code ( Municipal Code) (6 5 I LCS 5/1-4-7 (West 2006)). The C ity filed a motion for a summary judgment, cont ending that t he plaintiff's suit
was barred b y the one -y ear st atute of li mitations found in secti on 8-101(a) of the L ocal Governmenta l and Government al Employees Tort I mmunity Act (the Tort

Immun ity Ac t ) (745 IL CS 10/8-101( a) (West 2006)) . The circ uit cour t de nied the C ity's motion for a summary judgment

but certifi ed three questi ons for appe al pursu ant to Su prem e Co urt R ule 308 (eff . Feb. 1, 1994) . We conclude that the one-ye ar st atute of

limi tati ons foundin section 8-101(a) of the Tort

Immuni ty Act

does not apply to bar t

he plai ntif

f' s wrongful -demoli tion action against the C ity.2 FACTS On Feb ruary 13, 2 007 , the p laintiff filed its complai nt ag ainst the City, al leg ing t

hat the C ity impro perly demolis hed its church buildin g located at 110 1 State Stree t in Ea st St. Louis and failed to accountfor the proceeds of the sale of pr operty, which included bricks, hardwood, oak fl oors, and ot her materials . The City filed a m otion fo r a sum mary judgme nt, arguing that be cause the demolition had occurre d prior to Januar

y 15, 2005, andthe plaintiff did not fi le it s clai m untilFebruary 13, 2007, the plaintiff wa s barre d by the on e-yea r statute of limitations foun d in se ction 8 -101 (a) of th e To rt Immun ity Act. The plaintiff responded to the Ci ty' s moti on fora sum mary judgme nt, arguing that it s complai nt set forth an acti on based upon the City' s wrongfuldemolition of i ts prope rty, pur suant t o secti on 1-4-7 of t he Municipal Cod e, an action e xcluded from the T ort Immunity Act, and that therefore the Tort Immun ity Act' s stat

ute of l imit ations did not apply. On May 27, 200 9, th e circuit court concludedthat

a five-ye ar statute of limitatio ns fou nd in section 13-2 05 o f the C ode o f Civil Proced ure (7 35 I LCS 5/13-205 (W est 2006)), as opposed to t he one-year

limi tati ons peri od contai ned in the T ort Immu nity Ac t, app lied to the pla inti ff' s acti on, and the cour t denie d the City's motion for a sum mary judgme nt. On June 25, 2009, t

he City fi led a mot ion to ce rti fy thr ee questi ons of law for interlocutory appe al purs uant to Supre me C ourt R ule 308 (eff. Fe b. 1, 199 4). On November 30, 200 9, the circuit co urt fou nd th at the questions of l aw invol ved subs tanti al g round for diff erence of op inion a nd th at an im med iate ap peal m ay m aterially a dvanc e the u ltimate termi nationof the litigatio n. Ac cord in gly, the ci rcuit court granted t

he City' s moti on and
ce rt if ie d the fo ll owi ng que st io ns of law: "A. Does the on e yea r statute of limitatio ns co ntaine d in 7 45 ILC S 10/8- 101 apply to a cause o f action for dam ages brought pu rsuant to Section 1-4 -7 of th e Il linoi s Municipal Code?3

B. Do es th e lan guage conta ined in 745 ILCS 10 /2-10 1 stating th at '[n]othing in this Act aff

ects t he lia bili ty, i f any, of a

local public e ntit

y or public e mployee, based on: . . . Sect ion 1-4- 7 of the " Il linoi s Municipal Code" . . . .'alte r or elimina te the appl icat ion of t he one y ear statu te of limitatio ns co ntaine d in 745 IL CS 10/8-101 t o Plaintiff 's Complaint [?] C. Is Plainti ff' s cause of acti on alle ged i n the compl aint barred by t he one-year limitations period con tained in 745 ILCS 10/8-101 [?]" On December 14, 200 9, th e C ity file d an app licatio n fo r leave to app eal, w hich th is court granted on January 8 , 2010. AN AL Y SIS The plaintiff

argues that

because this acti on is brought pursuant to s ecti on 1-4-7 of the Municipal Code, i t is exempt fr om the immuni ties provi ded by the Tort Immuni ty Act (745 ILCS 10/2 -101(e) (W est 2006)) and that , ther efore, it i s also e xempted fr om the oneyearstat ute of l imit ations provi sion foun d in se ction 8 -101 (a) of th e To rt Immun ity Act. The plaintiff argu es th at be cau se its actio n se eks to reco ver d ama ge s for an in jury d one to propert y, the five-y ear statu te of li mitations set forth in section 13-205 of the C ode o f Civil Proced ure applies. 735 IL CS 5/13-205 ( West 2006) ("[ A]cti ons *** to re cover damages f or
an injury done to proper ty, real or p erson al, or to recove r the po ssessio n of p erson al prop erty
or dam ages for the de tention or co nversion thereo f, and all c ivi l act ions not otherwise provi ded for, s hall be commenced within 5 years next after the cause o f action accrue d."). The City counte rs that alt hough section 2-101 of the Tort Immunity Act (7 45 I LCS 10/2-101 (West 2006)) cr eates an exempti on from prov isi ons of the Tort Imm unity Act that
wo uld eliminate the "liability" of a pub lic entit y for a wrong ful demol iti on under sect ion 1-4- 7 of the Munici pal Code, the on e-yea r statute o f limitation s foun d in secti on 8-101(a) of the Tort Immunity Act still appli es because it af fects only the time within which a suit may be4

fil ed and no t the underl yin g liabi lit y. The City ar gues t

hat becaus e the exempt ion fr om gove rnmentalimmuni ty pr ovi ded fo r insect ion 2- 101 of t he Tort Immu nity A ct does not affect the one-ye ar st atute of li mitations per iod applic able t o suit s broug ht under secti on 1-4- 7 of the Munici pal Code, the plaintiff 's clai m is t ime-bar

red. The scope of r evi ew for an in ter locutor y appea l br ought

under Il li nois Supr eme Cou rt Ru le 308 is strictly limited to the certif iedquestion. In re Est

ate o f Wi llia ms , 366 I ll. App. 3d 746, 748 (2006). Because the question certif ied by the trialcourt must be a questi on of law, the appl icabl e standard of review is de novo

. Barbara's Sales, Inc. v. Intel Corp. , 227 Ill. 2d 45, 58 (200 7). "The cardinal ru le of

interpreting statutes, to which all other canon s and rules are subordinate, is to ascer

tain and giv e effec t to t

he true intent

and me aning of the legislature." Ferguson v. M cKe nzie , 202 I ll. 2d 304, 311 ( 2001). "The st arti ng point is al ways the langu age of the statute, w hich is the best indica tion of the intent of the d rafters." Paszkow ski

v. Metrop olitan W ater R eclam ation D istrict of G reater Chicago , 213 Ill. 2d 1, 7 (20 04). "When this lang uage i s unambiguous, the law is to be enforc ed as ena cted by the legislature." Paszkow ski , 213 Ill. 2d at 7. "W here there is an a lleged conflict betwe en two statutes, a court has a duty t o inter

pret t hose statutes in a manner t hat av oids aninconsi stency and g ive s effect to both statut es, where such an interpretation i s reasonably possible." Ferguson , 202 Ill. 2d at 311-12. "However, le gis lative i ntent r emains the pri mary inqui ry and contr ols the
co ur t's interpret ation of a stat ute." Ferguson , 202 Il l. 2d at312. "Tradi tionalrules of statutory interpre tation a re mer ely aids in determininglegis lativ e intent, and those rul es must yield to such intent ." Ferguson , 202 Ill. 2d at 312. "The sov erei gn i mmu nity of govern men tal entities in tort actio ns w as ab olished in Illinois by th is cou rt's 1959 d ecision in Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit Dist rict No. 302 , 18 Ill. 2d 11, 20 (1 959)." Zimmerman v. Vill age of Sko kie , 183 I ll. 2d 30, 43 (1 998).5

"In response to [the] Molitor decisi on, the I lli nois GeneralAssembly in 1965 enacted t he [Tort Immunity Act] [citat ion]." Zimmerman , 183 Ill. 2d at 43. "[T ]he [Tort Immun ity Act] adoptedthe g eneral pri ncip le f rom Molitor

't hat loc al g overnment al unit s are l iable in tor t but limi tedthis with an ext ensiv e lis t of i mmuniti es based on spe ci fi c government fun ctions.' Bur dinie v. Village of G lenda le He ights , 139 Ill. 2d 501, 506 (1990)." Zimmerman , 183 Ill. 2d at 43. The statute of

limit ations found in secti on 8-101(a) of the Tort Immunity Act s tates, in relev ant part, as fol lows: "No civil action *** may be com menced in any co urt agai nst a l ocal ent ity or any of its employees f

or any inj ury unles s it

is commenced wit

hin on e year fro m the d ate that t he injur y was receiv ed or the c ause of action accr ued." 745 I LCS 10/8- 101(a) (W est 2006). See also 745 I LCS 10/8- 101(c) ( West 2006) ("[ T]he term ' civ il ac tion'include s any acti on, whetherbased upon the c ommon law or statutes or Consti tuti on of this State."). How ever, section 2-101 of the Tort I mmunity Act provides, i n pertinent part, as follows: "No th ing in this Act

affects t he right t o obtain relief other than damages a gainst a local pub lic entity o r pub lic employee. Nothing in t his Act affect s the l iabil ity, if any, of a loca l publi c enti ty or publ ic empl oyee, based on: a). C ontrac t; b). Operat ion as a common carri er; *** c). The ' Workers' Compensation Ac t' ***; d). The ' Workers' OccupationalDiseases Ac t' ***; e). Sect ion 1-4- 7 of the 'I lli nois MunicipalCod e' ***." 745 ILCS 10 /2-101(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) (W est 2006). Sect ion 1-4-7 of the M unicip al Co de pr ovides fo r liability fo r the rem oval,6

destruction, or v acation of unsafe or unsanitary buil dings and provides as f ollows: "The mun ic ipal ity shall b e liable fo r any injury o ccasio ned b y actio nable wro ng to prop erty by the remov al, des truction or v acati on, in whole or i n part, of any un safe
or uns anita ry b uild ing, b y an y m uni cipa l offic er, b oar d or emp loy ee c har ge d with autho rity to order

or execut e such remo val, destru ction o r vacation , if such remo val, destr uctionor vacation i s pursuant to val id statut es, ordinances or regul ations, and if such officer, boar d or e mplo yee h as acte d in goo d faith, with r easonable care and probab le cause." 65 ILCS 5/1-4-7 (W est 2006). Section 1-4-7 o f the M unicipal Co de forms the b asis of the plaintiff's action here. In RaintreeHomes, Inc. v. Vi llage of Long Grove , 209 Il l. 2d 248, 256 (2004), the supreme cour

t concl uded that

the plaintiff

s sought "rel ief ot

her thandam ages," a s set forth in the fi rst s entence of secti on 2-101 of the Tort Immunity Act and that, theref

ore, the plaintif fs' cause of ac tion was excluded from the T ort Immunity Act. Raintree Hom es, Inc. , 209 Il l. 2dat 258. The supr eme court he ld that because the plaintiff

s' clai m was excluded from th e To rt Immun ity Act, th e one -year s tatute of li mitations contai ned in section 8-101 of the T ort Immu nity Ac t was inapp licable and did not bar the pl ainti ffs'amended com plaint. RaintreeHomes, Inc. , 209 Ill. 2d at 261. In RaintreeHomes, Inc. , the plaintif fs' acti on seeking rel ief ot her than damages was exclu ded f

rom th e To rt Immun ity Act purs uant to t he fir st sent ence of

secti on 2-101 of the Tort Immunity Act. Li kewise, i n the pres ent case , the pl ainti ff' s acti on, seek ing r elie f pursuant to section 1-4- 7 of the Munici pal Code, is excluded f rom the Tort

Immuni ty Act pursuant to sub section (e) of se ction 2 -101 of the T ort Immu nity Act (7 45 I LCS 10/2-101( e) (West 2006)). S ee RaintreeHomes, Inc. , 209 Ill. 2d at 2 55 (th e cou rt enum erated the full list of "except ions to the [Tort Immunity] Act" f ound in section 2-101, makingno dist incti on between the exception found in the fir st sentence and the excep tions delineated b y letter).7

According ly, in defe rence to th e s up re m e c ou rt 's decisi on in RaintreeHomes, Inc. , we find that secti on 2-101(e) of the Tort Immuni ty Act

excludes t

he plai ntif

f' s wrongful -demoli tion acti on from the time limi tati ons set forth in section 8-101(a) of the Tort Immuni ty Act . See RaintreeHomes, Inc. , 209 I ll. 2d at 261. We recogni ze that the supr eme court has held that the leg isl at ure intended the statute of limitations found in section 8-10 1(a) of the T ort Immun ity Act to a pply broa dly to any pote ntialclai m agai nst a l ocal g overnment al entit y and its employees, and there fore, t his type of comprehens ive protection necess arily control s over other statutes of limitations. Paszkow ski , 213 Ill. 2d at 12 -13; Ferguson , 202 Il l. 2d at 312; Tosado v. Mille r , 188 I ll. 2d 186, 194 -95 (1 999 ) (plura lity opinion) . However, i n Raintree Hom es, Inc. , the supreme cour t answered i n the aff

irmat ive the prec ise ques tion we are asked here: whether sect ion 2-101 of the Tort Immuni ty Act

operate s to exclude the enumer ated acti ons from the time limi tati on set forth in section 8-10 1(a) of the T ort Immunity Act. We are thus bo und to follow its decision. We apply the suprem e court' s reasoning in RaintreeHomes, Inc. , despit e the confli cting

reasoni ng of t

his court in Cooper v. Bi-Stat e Development Agency , 158 Il l. App. 3d 19 (1 98 7) . In Cooper , this court held th at altho ugh se ction 2 -101 (b) of th e To rt Immun ity Actprese rved an action against a local p ublic entit y acti ng as a common carri er, i t was not intende d to remov e that defendant

from the specif

ic noti ce requi remen t s of the To rt Immun ity Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 85 , par. 8-102 ). Cooper , 158 I ll. App. 3d at 25. Ins tead, this court hel d that s ecti on 2-101 of the Tort Immunity Act merely pr eserv ed the standard of care to w hich the de fendant m ust adhere to a void liability. Cooper , 158 I ll. App. 3d at 25; s ee Slaughter

v. Rock Isl

and County Metropoli tan Mass Transit Distri ct , 275 Ill. App. 3d 873, 874-75 (1995) (the cour t concl uded, as did t

he court in Cooper , that the use of the term "l iabil ity" in section 2-101 of the Tort Immuni ty Act

simpl y preser

vedthe standard of care, and th e court app lied the Tort Immun ity Act's one-year limi tat ion peri od). The8

Cooper cour t conc luded that be caus e the p laintiff failed to com ply with t he notic e requ iremen ts of the T ort Immu nity Ac t, her ac tion again st the de fend ant ha d bee n pro perly dismiss ed w ith prejudice. Cooper , 158 Ill . App. 3d at 25; see also McClin tock v . Bi-S tate DevelopmentAgency , 228 Ill. App. 3 d 38 2, 38 5 (19 92) (th is cou rt follow ed the reaso ning in Cooper to rej ect the defendant 's argument that the no tice req uirem ents in th e To rt Immun ity Actwere inappl icabl e as a matt er of l aw by virt ue of sect ion 2-101( b) of the T ort Immu nity Actbecause the acti on sought to impos e lia

bili ty for the defe ndant' s operat ion as a common carrier). To the ext ent that the reasoni ng in Cooper and McClintock confl ict s with the supr eme
co ur t's reasoni ng in RaintreeHomes, Inc. , we hereby a bandon it. Ins tead, we fi nd that because section 2-10 1(e) o f the T ort Immu nity Ac t exclu des th e plain tiff's wron gfuld emolit ion a ction f

rom the pr ovis ions of t he Tort Immunity Act , the one- year st atute of li mitations found in se ction 8- 101(a) of the Tort Immuni ty Act

does not apply to bar t he pl ai nt if f's acti on. See RaintreeHomes, Inc. , 209 I ll. 2d at 261; s ee also Paszkow ski , 213 Ill. 2d at 16 (Fitz gerald , J., d issen ting, join ed b y K ilbrid e an d R arick, JJ.) ("[T ]he T ort Immu nity Actitself

d oes n ot evince a catego rical legislative in tent tha t section 8-10 1 nec essarily contro ls over ot

her express s tatut es of l imit ations . Sect ion 2-101 of the [Tort Immuni ty] Act excludes certa in cla ims fr om the Act . [Cit ation. ] *** The leg isl ature intended for the sta tutes of li mitation for claim s listed in th e enu merate d exc eption s of sec tion 2-1 01 to remain intact" a s held in RaintreeHomes, Inc. , where "we impli citly restrict ed secti on 8- 10 1's use of the term ' any acti on' to giv e effec t to t he enumerat ed exce ptions in section 2-101."). CONCL USI ON For the foregoingreasons, we answer the certified questions as f ollows: A. No. The one-yearstatute of li mitations cont ained i n secti on 8-101(a) of the9 Tort Immu nity Act d oes not app ly to a ca use of a ction for d ama ge s broug ht pursuant to section 1-4- 7 of the Munici pal Code. B. Yes. Th e lan guage contai ned in sectio n 2-1 01(e ) of the Tort Imm unity A ct, statin g, "Nothingin thi s Actaffect s the l iabil ity, if any, of a loc al pub lic entity
or pub lic emp loyee , base d on *** Section 1-4-7 of the 'Ill i no i s Mu nicipa l Code,' " obviates t

he appli cati on of the Tort Immun ity Act's one -year s tatute of limi tati ons to th e p la in ti ff 's wrongful -demoli tion ac tion pur suant t o secti on 1-4-7 of t he Municipal Code. C. No. The plaintiff 's cause of ac tion al leg ed in the complai nt is not barr ed by the one-yea r l im itations period con tained in section 8 -101(a) of the Tort Immun ity Act.

Certif ied questions answere d; cause r emanded.NO. 5-09-0675 I N THE AP PE LLA TE C O U R T O F IL LIN O IS

FI FTH DI STRI CT

___________________________________________________________________________________ HARVE ST CHURCH OF OUR L ORD, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit

Court of Plaintiff -Appell ee, ) St. Clair County. ) v. ) No. 07-L-89 ) TH E C ITY O F E AST ST . LO UIS, ILLINO IS, ) Ho nora ble ) Lloyd A. Cuet o, De fend ant-Ap pellan t. ) Judge, presiding.

___________________________________________________________________________________ Opini on Fi led : February 10, 2011

___________________________________________________________________________________ Justi ces : Honorable James M . Wex stten, J.

Honorable Meliss a A. Chapman, P.J. , and Hon orable R ichard P. G oldenhe rsh, J., Concur

___________________________________________________________________________________ Attorn eys William P. Hardy, Hinshaw & Culbert son LLP, 400 S outh Ninth S treet , Sui te 200, for Sp ri ng fi el d, I L 6 270 1; Cha d A . J en ni ng s, Kathryn E . Cr os sl ey , Hi ns ha w & Appe llant Culberts on LLP, 521 West Main St reet, Suit e 300, Belle vil le, I L 62222

___________________________________________________________________________________ Attorn ey Geo rge R. Ripp linger, Ripplinger & Zim mer, LLC, 2 215 W est Ma in Street, for Bellev ill e, I L 62226-6692 Appell ee

___________________________________________________________________________________