Opinion ID: 2077563
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of Mullane

Text: The majority asserts that the outcome in this case is a textbook application of the analysis in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). See 237 Ill.2d at 126, 340 Ill.Dec. at 572, 928 N.E.2d at 819. In Mullane, the United States Supreme Court held that a state must provide notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them opportunity to present their objections. Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314, 70 S.Ct. at 657, 94 L.Ed. at 873. The proceeding which triggered the requirement for notice was a judicial action to settle the accounts of a common trust fund conclusively as to all members. The Court held that the known beneficiaries of the trust were entitled to actual notice of the pending proceeding as opposed to notice by publication. The Court emphasized that notice will pass due process muster when the practicalities and peculiarities of the case    are reasonably met. Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314-15, 70 S.Ct. at 657, 94 L.Ed. at 873. The focus is on the reasonableness of the means chosen by the state. Mullane, 339 U.S. at 315, 70 S.Ct. at 657, 94 L.Ed. at 874. Reasonableness is measured on the outcome of the balance between the interest of the State and the individual interest sought to be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314, 70 S.Ct. at 657, 94 L.Ed. at 873. I fail to see how Mullane dictates that actual notice is required in this case. The City's interest in this case is a strong one. This court has recognized that the purpose of zoning, as expressed in the Municipal Code, is to limit the rights of citizens to use their property in order to promote and protect the public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the people. See Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 229 Ill.2d 296, 322 Ill.Dec. 548, 891 N.E.2d 839 (2008). It is against these vital interests that we must weigh the interest possessed by the plaintiffs. Given the nature of plaintiffs' interest, constructive notice is reasonable. For some 20 years, the property in this case remained unimproved, with no building permits issued or pending. On balance there is no reason for the City to have to go through the extra time and expense of providing actual notice to property holders under these circumstances. The majority, however, holds that the City could have made reasonable efforts to contact plaintiffs and the other owners of record of the affected parcels by perus[ing] the records of the Lake County collector and then mail notice to the [owners] of the 85 properties affected. What the majority means by perus[ing] the records is unclear to me. I take the majority to mean that the City had, by virtue of the county property tax rolls, the names and addresses of all the owners of the affected parcels. Again, for the subject property, those records would only indicate the name of the trustee, who holds title to the property under the trust. In this case, notice would be mailed to the trustee who would then forward it to the beneficiaries. Thus, what the majority views as a mere perusal is, in fact, a title search or a property tax search on each of the affected parcels. In my view, this burden is unreasonable in light of the fact that the right to the use of property does not include the right to a continued zoning classification.