## I L L I N O I S 

## O F F I C I A L 

## RE P O R T S Appellate Court

In re Estat

e of D euth , 2013 IL App (3d) 120194

Appellate Court Caption In r e ESTATE OF AL BI NA DEUTH, Dec ease d (The Depa rtment of Hea lthcare and Fa

mily Service s, Plaintiff-Appellant, v

. Christine Fiedle r, Ex ecutor of the Estate of Albina Deuth, Dec ease d, Def endant- Appellee ).

District & N o. Third District Docke t No. 3-12-0194

Rule 23 Order

filed Motion to publ ish allowed Opinion filed April 24, 2013

J une 27, 2013
J une 27, 2013

Held (Note : This syl lab us

con st it ute s no par t of the opi nio n of the cour t but has bee n pre

par ed by the Repo rt er of D e c i s i o n s f

o r t h e

c o n v e n i e n c e o

f t h e

rea der

. ) The trial court err ed in ruling t h at the State’s claim ag ainst dece dent’s
estate seeking reimburse ment for Medica id pa y ments was ba

rre d by the five-year “catch-a ll” statute of l imitations set forth in section 13-205 of the Code of Civil Proce du re , since section 13-205 does not expressly apply to claims brought by t h e go v ernme nt, a public right was being

asser ted, not a private rig ht, and nothi ng in the P ub lic Aid Code place d any limit ation on claims by

the State.

Dec ision Under Review Appea l f rom the Circuit Court of Putnam County
, No. 09-P-2; the Hon. Kevin R. Galley , J udg e, pre siding.

J udg ment Reverse d; cause rema nded.Counsel on

Appea l L isa Madig an, Attorney Gene ral, of Chicag o (Carl J

. Elitz
, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, of c ounsel), for appellant.

No brief filed for appellee

.

Panel J USTI CE HOL DRI DGE delivere d the judgme nt of the court, with opinion. Presidin g J u s tice Wright and J ustice Carter concur red in the judgme nt and opinion.

OP INION

¶ 1 The plaintiff, the I llinois Depa rtment of Hea lthcare and Fami l y S er v i ce s (t h e S tate), brought a cl ai m aga i n s t the estate of Albina Deuth (the Estate) under section 5-13 of the Public Aid Code (305 I L CS 5/5-13 (West 2010)) for the reimburse ment of cer tain Medica id expenses. The defe ndant, Christine Fiedle r, the executor of the Estate, asser ted I llinois ’s 5-
year “ca tch-a ll” statute of limit ations (735 I L CS 5/13-205 (West 2010)) as a partial defe nse to the State’s claim, arguing that the State was barr ed from rec overing any Medica id pay ments it made to Albina Deuth more than five y ear s befor e the probate estate was opened. The circ uit court ruled that the five-year limit ations period applied to the State’s claim, eff ectively rende ring the State’s claim to rec over Medica id benef its paid outside that period time-barr ed. The State filed a timely motion to reco n s i der, which the circ uit court denied. The State has appea led the circ uit court’s order under Supreme Court Rule 304(b)( 1). I ll. S. Ct. R. 304(b)(1) (e ff. F eb. 26, 2010).

¶ 2 BA CKGROUND ¶ 3 On Marc h 17, 2009, Fiedle r filed a p ro b ate petition related to the will of her de cea sed mother, Albina Deuth. The petition stated that Deuth died on J anuar y 21, 2009, and that the Estate had a value of approximately $64,000. Fiedle r was appointed as the independe nt executor of the E state on Mar ch 19, 2009. ¶ 4 On J uly 15, 2009, the State filed a claim ag ainst the Estate under s ec t ion 5-13 of the Public Aid Code (305 I L CS 5/5-13 (West 2010)) seeking to rec over $6,237 i n M ed i caid benef its it had paid on De u t h ’s behalf

. The pay ments wer e for “supplementa l medical insurance benef

its” and “phar

macy claims” dated betwee n Februar y 1, 2001, and Dec ember 10, 2008. ¶ 5 In her answe r to the State’s claim, the defe ndant raised I llinois ’s 5-year “catc h

- a ll” statute of limit ations (735 I L CS 5/13-205 (2010)) as an aff irm ati ve defe nse to a portion of the

-2-State’s clai m

. She arg ued that claims to rec over pay ments that wer e “incur

red” more than five y ear s befor e the probate action was filed wer e time-barr ed. The trial court ruled that section 13-205 applied to the State’s claim, eff ectively rende ring the State’s claim to rec over Medica id benef

its paid outside of the five- y ear limit ations period time-ba rre d. ¶ 6 The State filed a motion to rec onsider, arguing tha t the limit ations period presc ribed in section 13-205 did not apply to claims brought by the State to rec over public money from the
estate of a dece ased Medica id rec ipient. In her response to the State’s motion, Fiedle r noted that while s ection 13-205 expressly exempted claims brought under an other section of t he Public Aid Code, it did not exempt claims brought under section 5-13. She argued that this sug g ested that the leg islature did not intend to exempt t he State’s claim from the statute of limit ations. Fiedle r also noted that, under the Public Aid Code, the State’s perf ecte d liens on

a M edica re rec ipient’s proper

ty are valid for only five y ear s (305 I L CS 5/3-10

. 2 (W es t 2010)). She arg

ued that this showed that the leg islature had “incor porate d a statute of limit ations into the Publ ic Aid Code.” ¶ 7 On Fe bruar

y 6, 201 2
, t h e circ uit court issued an order deny ing the State’s motion to

rec onsider. The order included languag e indicating that it was a final and appea lable order

. The State filed a timely appea l under Supreme Court Rule 304(b)( 1). I ll. S. Ct. R. 304(b)( 1) (ef f. F eb. 26, 2010).

¶ 8 ANALYSI S ¶ 9 As an ini tial matter, we note t hat Fiedl er d i d not file an appellee ’s brief. Neve rtheless,

we find that we may addre ss the merits of the appea l beca use the rec ord is simple and the claimed err ors can be easily decide d without the aid of an appellee ’s brief. See First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp.
, 63 I ll. 2d 1 2 8 (1 9 7 6 ); People ex rel. Director of the De

partment of Corrections v. Booth , 352 I ll. App. 3d 297, 299 (2004). ¶ 10 The State a

rgues that sec tion 13-205 does not bar c laims by the g overnme nt to recove r public money

. We agree

. Under the common law, when a g overnme ntal unit acts in a public capa city ( i.e. , when it seeks to asser t a rig ht belong ing to the g ener al public), a statute of limit ations may not be asser ted ag ainst the g overnme nt unle ss the statute expressly applies to claims brought by

the g overnme nt. City of Shelbyville v. Shelbyville Restorium, Inc. , 96 I ll. 2d 457, 459-62 (1983); City of Chicago v. Latroni ca Asphalt & Grading, Inc.
, 346 I ll. App. 3d 264, 269-70 (2004). Section 13-205 does not expressly apply to claims brought by 1 the g overn m en t

. Latroni ca , 346 I ll. App. 3d at 269-70. Moreove r, by seeking to rec over Medica id pay

ments, the State is seeking to asser t a public rig ht, not a private rig ht. See, e.g. , People ex rel. Departme nt of Public A i d v. Dent
, 244 I ll. App. 3d 380, 382-83 (1993) (holding that supreme court rule intended to supplement statute of limit ations did not apply to State claim to rec over public assistance benef its ithad over

paid to rec ipients; implicitly rulin g that such claims asser t public rig hts); see also Clare v. Bell
, 378 I ll. 128, 130-31

T his comm on la w m axi m was tr adi ti ona ll y label ed “ nul lum te mpus occ urr it reg i ,” a Lat in 1 phr ase m ean ing “t ime doe s not run agains t the K ing.” (I nte rna l quot at ion m arks om it te d.) Latron ic a , 346 I ll . App. 3d a t 2 69.

-3-(1941) (State’s action to collect penalties on d eli nquent property taxes allowed to proce ed

even though statute of limit ations had run, appar ently beca u se to rig ht to collect such penalties was “public”)

. Fiedle r has not disputed that the State’s claim involves the asser tion of a public rig ht. Nor could she plausibly dispute that fac t. The State’s claim seeks to rec over public funds paid to a citizen in the form of public healthca re b en efits. Such benef

its are obviously desig ned to assi s t t h e p ub l ic. Moreove r, if the State is unable to rec over these Medica id pay

ments from the Estate, there will be a loss of public reve nue. Acc ording ly
, the State’s claim in this case asser ts a public rig ht, and section 13-205 does not apply

. See, e.g. , Dent
, 244 I ll. App. 3 d at 382-83; Clare
, 378 I ll. at 130-31; Champaign County Forest Preserv e District v. King , 291 I ll. App. 3d 197, 200-04 (1997). ¶ 11 In her response to the State’s motion to rec onsider, Fiedle r n o t ed t h at s ection 13-205 expressly exempted section 11-13 of the Public Aid Code from the limit ations period but did not exempt s ection 5-13. A ccor ding to Fiedle r, t his shows that the l eg islature int ended the five-year limit ations period to apply to the claim as s er t ed by the S tate in this case

. Fiedle r argued that, if the State wer e immune from statutes of limit ations, there would have been no need for the leg islature to expressly exempt section 11-13 of the Public Ai d Code. We disag ree

. Contrary to Fiedle r’s sugges t i o n , section 11-13 of the Public Aid Code does not addre ss claims brought by the g overnme nt. Rather, it addre sses claims by public aid vendors who seek re i mb ursement from the g overnme nt. In other words, section 11-13 addre sses claims against the g overnme nt, not claims brought by the g overnme nt on behalf of t h e public. Thus, it h as n o t h i n g to do with the State’s claims in this case or with any claims

asser ted by the g overnme nt. The fac t that claims brought by vendors under section 11-13 are exempt from th e s t at u t e of limit ations in no way sug g ests that claims brought by the g overnme nt a

re not a lso e x empt. To the contra ry , it is presumed that claims brought by the State which asser

t public rig hts are exempt unless the statute of limit ations expressly provides that they are not. L atronica , 346 I ll. App. 3d at 269-70. Be cause section 13-205 contains no such pr ovision, the St ate’ s claim is exempt from that statute’s operation. ¶ 12 Fiedle r also argued below that the State has “incor porate d a statute of limit ations into the Public Aid Code” by providing that the State’s lien o n a M ed icaid rec ipient’s proper ty is valid for only five year s afte r it is rec orded. 305 I L CS 5/3-10.2 (West 2010); 305 I L CS 5/5- 13 (West 2010) (incorpor ating li e n r e q u ire me nts and conditions presc ribed in sections 3-10.1 to 3-10.10 of the Public Aid Code). We disag ree

. The Public Aid Code mere ly provides that
a st ate lien is enfor cea

ble for a period o f fi v e y ea rs after it is rec orded. I t does not provide that a lien must be rec orded within a cer tain period of time. Nor does it sug g est that a claim
to enfor ce the State’s lien ag ainst a rec ipient’s estate may not include M ed i ca i d pay ments that wer e made more than five y ea rs b efor e the probate estate was opened. Any such

su gges t i o n woul d run counter t o both the l etter and the s pirit of section 5-13 of the P ublic Aid Act, which entitles the State to rec over the entire “am o u n t ex p ended” on Medica id pay ments made to a rec ipient as a claim ag ainst the rec ipient’s estate. 305 I L CS 5/5-13 (West 2010). Fur

ther, althoug h a lien by the State is enfor ceabl e fo r o n l y five y ear s afte r it is

rec orded, P ub l i c Ai d Code provides that the lien “may be extended for additional 5 y ear periods upon the fil ing or rec ordation of a new notice of lien p ri o r t o t h e expiration of t he

curr ent period of enfor cea bility .” 305 I L CS 5/3-10.2 (West 2010). In other words, the State

-4-may extend a p er fe ct ed lien indefinitely simply by filing notice of i ts intent to do so ever y five y ear s. Thus, contra

ry to Fiedle r’s asser

tion, nothing in the Public Aid Act imposes any ty pe of limitations period on claims brought by the State.

¶ 13 CONCLUSI ON ¶ 14 For the fore g oing rea sons, we reve rse the judgme nt of the circ uit court of Putnam County and re mand this cause so that the circ uit c ourt may consider the merits of the State’s c laim in its entirety

.

¶ 15 Reverse d; cause rema nded.

-5-