Court Opinion

ID: 9523311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:38:54.155193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:04:53.043329
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Kluczynski, dissenting: In my opinion, the issue to which this court must address itself is not whether the receiver “has authority to select legal counsel in connection with the discharge of his statutory duties, or whether the selection and appointment of the receiver’s counsel rests exclusively with the circuit court.” It is, rather, whether the receiver must, in the first instance, petition that court for leave to retain, and for approval of, his chosen counsel. It is true that the respondent judge informed the parties before him at the initial hearing on the liquidation that the power to choose and retain counsel rested with the court. It is also true, however, that respondent subsequently retracted this position, indicating to the parties that his refusal to recognize Mr. Jenner was based on the failure of the Commissioner or the receiver to submit a proper petition to the court for his appointment. It is within the context of this latter position of respondent, which he reasserts in this court, that the propriety of awarding a writ of mandamus should be adjudged. It is undeniable that “[t]he receivership herein * * * is created by the Illinois Savings and Loan Act” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, chap. 32, pars. 921 et seq.), that, as such, it is “an executive or administrative receivership, as distinguished from a court created equity receivership,” and that therefore many of the traditional powers of a court of chancery, including the power to appoint the receiver, have been by statute explicitly reposited in a State official, in this case, the Commissioner of Savings and Loan Associations. (Chap. 32, par. 921.) However, this Act, unlike other acts involving similar legislative purposes (see Insurance Code, Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, chap. 73, par. 814), makes no express provision for the appointment or approval of legal counsel and I cannot, like the majority, infer from its terms an absolute license for the receiver to appoint counsel without prior notification to and approval by the court. The Act authorizes the Commissioner to take custody of an association and, if involuntary liquidation is necessary, to appoint a qualified person to act as receiver and to apply through the Attorney General to a court of equity for the orderly liquidation and dissolution of the association, including injunctive relief restraining the officers from continuing operation of the association. (Chap. 32, par. 922.) But this ends the sole discretionary powers of the Commissioner and receiver, as thereafter their statutory duties and responsibilities are expressly subjected to court regulation, and even the receiver’s most routine acts or decisions are conditioned upon application to the court and must be exercised “as the court shall direct.” (Chap. 32, pars. 923, 924, 925, 927.) In particular, section 10 — 7 (par. 927) provides that the receiver must file with the court, for its approval, a final report of his acts and proposed final distribution and that he make such distribution as the court directs. There is no case cited by the parties or the majority holding that a statutory receiver may appoint legal counsel without court approval. The applicable statute makes no express provision authorizing such unilateral action and, in my opinion, no such authority can be fairly inferred from the terms of the statute, especially in light of the many and significant supervisory powers ascribed to the court. Therefore, due to this lack of a clear expression of legislative intent, or of judicial precedent to the contrary, I would hold that the well-established powers of chancery inherent in liquidation proceedings are operable here and dictate that the receiver should petition the court for leave to retain and for approval of his chosen counsel. To my mind, this holding is supported by, and perfectly consistent with, long-standing rules of proper court procedure. Moreover, while a mandamus action is not conditioned upon its being the sole remedy available (People ex rel. Palmer v. Niehaus, 356 Ill. 104, 106), logic and the interests of an economical use of our judicial system suggest that the receiver should have petitioned the circuit court for the approval of counsel prior, to instituting the present mandamus action in this court. Accordingly, I would deny the issuance of the writ.