Title: St. Clair County v. Phillips
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 97280
State: Illinois
Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court
Date: October 21, 2004

Docket No. 97280-Agenda 27-September 2004.
ST. CLAIR COUNTY, Appellant, v. KATHRYN PHILLIPS et al., 							Appellees.
Opinion filed October 21, 2004. 
	JUSTICE GARMAN delivered the opinion of the court:
	This case comes before us on appeal as a matter of right pursuant
to Supreme Court Rule 302(a) (134 Ill. 2d R. 302(a)), because the
circuit court of St. Clair County has declared a state statute to be
unconstitutional. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment
of the circuit court.
	Pursuant to section 5-1121 of the Counties Code (55 ILCS
5/5-1121 (West 2000)), plaintiff St. Clair County filed a petition for
demolition in the circuit court on December 28, 2001, in which it
sought authorization to demolish structures located at 128 Arlington
Drive and 132 Arlington Drive in Belleville, Illinois. In addition to an
order permitting demolition, the County requested expedited setting
of a hearing and recovery of all costs of demolition and rehabilitation
of the land, as well as court costs and attorney fees. Defendants, all of
whom hold some legal or equitable interest in the subject properties,
filed their answer on June 3, 2002. After numerous delays, the matter
was set for trial in October 2003.
	Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that section
5-1121 of the Counties Code is unconstitutional, citing Village of
Lake Villa v. Stokovich, 334 Ill. App. 3d 488 (2002), in which the
appellate court found section 11-31-1 of the Illinois Municipal Code
(65 ILCS 5/11-31-1 (West 1996)) unconstitutional on due process
grounds. According to defendants, the authority given to county
boards in section 5-1121 of the County Code "directly parallels" the
authority given to municipalities in section 11-31-1 of the Municipal
Code. Thus, defendants claimed, because section 11-31-1 was
unconstitutional, section 5-1121 did not pass constitutional muster.
Specifically, they argued that, under Stokovich, a statute that
permitted demolition upon findings that the structure is dangerous and
unsafe and beyond reasonable repair, without allowing the property
owner to repair the property after such findings are made, constitutes
an unlawful taking without due process and without just
compensation. See Stokovich, 334 Ill. App. 3d at 503-04. On October
6, 2003, the circuit court granted defendants' motion to dismiss,
finding section 5-1121 unconstitutional.
	Subsequently, in Village of Lake Villa v. Stokovich, 211 Ill. 2d 106 (2004), this court held that section 11-31-1 of the Municipal
Code is not unconstitutional because the procedure established by the
statute is rationally related to the public interest in health and safety
and, further, the method chosen by the legislature to protect and
further this interest is reasonable.
	In the present case, the circuit court did not explain the basis for
its conclusion that section 5-1121 is unconstitutional. However, as the
only authority cited to the circuit court was the appellate court
decision in Stokovich, it may reasonably be inferred that the circuit
court relied, at least in part, on this authority. We, therefore, vacate
the judgment of the circuit court and remand for reconsideration in
light of our decision in Stokovich.
	For the forgoing reason, we vacate the judgment of the circuit
court and remand for further proceedings.
Vacated and remanded.