Court Opinion

ID: 9409100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 21:05:20.437853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:48.669049
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (2d) 220242
                                  No. 2-22-0242
                            Opinion filed July 14, 2023
______________________________________________________________________________

                                             IN THE

                              APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                              SECOND DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________

In re APPLICATION OF THE COUNTY             ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
TREASURER AND ex officio COUNTY             ) of Lake County.
COLLECTOR OF LAKE COUNTY                    )
for General Taxes for the Year 2018         )
                                            )
                                            ) No. 19-TX-7
                                            )
(Lawrence Lazar and Elizabeth Lazar,        )
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Holly Kim, Lake   ) Honorable
County Treasurer and ex officio Lake County ) Daniel B. Shanes,
Collector, Defendant-Appellee).             ) Judge, Presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________

       JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
       Presiding Justice McLaren and Justice Schostok concurred in the judgment and opinion.

                                            OPINION

¶1     Plaintiffs, Lawrence and Elizabeth Lazar, appealed their 2018 real estate tax assessment to

the Lake County Board of Review (Board of Review), which determined that a reduction in the

assessment was not warranted. Plaintiffs then appealed to the Property Tax Appeal Board (PTAB)

but subsequently withdrew their appeal. Thereafter, they filed a tax objection complaint in the

circuit court. Defendant, Holly Kim, the Lake County Treasurer and ex officio Lake County

Collector, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/1-1

et seq. (West 2020)) precluded plaintiffs from filing a tax objection complaint in the circuit court
2023 IL App (2d) 220242

and, thus, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. The circuit court granted

defendant’s summary judgment motion, and plaintiffs appeal. We reverse and remand.

¶2                                       I. BACKGROUND

¶3     Plaintiffs own the property at 2358 Highmoor Road in Highland Park. They paid the real

estate taxes on the property for tax year 2018 and timely filed a 2018 real estate valuation

complaint with the Board of Review. After a hearing, the Board of Review, on January 4, 2019,

determined that the evidence did not warrant a reduction in the property’s assessment. 1

¶4     On April 25, 2019, plaintiffs appealed to the PTAB. The PTAB issued a docket number

(No. 18-02546). On September 30, 2019, plaintiffs requested to withdraw their appeal, and, on

October 17, 2019, the PTAB granted plaintiffs’ request.

¶5     On November 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed, in the circuit court, a tax objection complaint,

challenging the 2018 real estate taxes on their property.

¶6     On February 26, 2020, defendant moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint (735 ILCS 5/2-

619(a)(1) (West 2020)), arguing that the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over

the matter, because, by filing an appeal to the PTAB, plaintiffs were precluded from later filing a

tax objection complaint in the circuit court. On July 29, 2020, the circuit court (Judge Jorge L.

Ortiz) denied defendant’s motion.

¶7     On February 15, 2022, defendant moved for summary judgment (id. § 2-1005(c)), arguing

again that the Property Tax Code precluded plaintiffs from filing their complaint in the circuit

       1
           In its decision, the Board of Review lists the common address of the property as 12 Ridge

Road, Highland Park. The parties agree that the property’s common address is 2358 Highmoor

Road, Highland Park.

                                                 -2-
2023 IL App (2d) 220242

court after they had filed an appeal to the PTAB and, thus, the circuit court lacked subject matter

jurisdiction to hear their complaint. On May 31, 2022, the circuit court (Judge Daniel B. Shanes)

granted defendant summary judgment. Plaintiffs appeal.

¶8                                         II. ANALYSIS

¶9      Plaintiffs argue that the circuit court erred in granting defendant summary judgment. They

contend that their voluntary withdrawal of their appeal before the PTAB rendered the

administrative filing a legal nullity and, thus, did not preclude their filing a tax objection complaint

in the circuit court. Plaintiffs assert that the relevant Property Tax Code provision is ambiguous

and that a broad reading is warranted to ensure a just result, especially considering the PTAB

regulations that favor voluntary withdrawals. They contend that they moved to voluntarily

withdraw their 2018 appeal and that the PTAB rules, unlike the Code of Civil Procedure, contain

no formal right of reinstatement within 30 days or a provision for refiling. See id. §§ 2-1301(e),

13-217. Thus, they reason, once their motion for withdrawal was filed and granted, the PTAB lost

jurisdiction over the matter and their initial appeal was a legal nullity. For the following reasons,

we agree with plaintiffs’ arguments.

¶ 10    A circuit court is permitted to grant summary judgment only if the pleadings, depositions,

and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as

to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Id. § 2-

1005(c). The circuit court must view these documents and exhibits in the light most favorable to

the nonmoving party. Home Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 213 Ill. 2d 307, 315

(2004). The purpose of summary judgment is not to try an issue of fact but to determine whether

a triable issue of fact exists. Schrager v. North Community Bank, 328 Ill. App. 3d 696, 708 (2002).

Whether the circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law and properly decided

                                                 -3-
2023 IL App (2d) 220242

on a motion for summary judgment. La Verne v. Jackman, 84 Ill. App. 2d 445, 454-55 (1967). We

review de novo a circuit court’s decision to grant a motion for summary judgment. Outboard

Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90, 102 (1992).

¶ 11   Further, the construction of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo. Board

of Education of Richland School District No. 88A v. City of Crest Hill, 2021 IL 126444, ¶ 20. “Our

primary objective in construing a statute is to ascertain and effectuate the legislature’s intent.”

Hacker v. Halley, 2021 IL App (2d) 210050, ¶ 20. We are guided by the statute’s language, which

is the best indication of that intent, and we must apply the statute as written, giving the words used

their plain and ordinary meaning. Id. We cannot “add provisions that are not found in a statute, nor

[can we] depart from [the] statute’s plain language by reading into the law exceptions, limitations,

or conditions that the legislature did not express.” Schultz v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 237

Ill. 2d 391, 408 (2010).

¶ 12   Under the Property Tax Code, a party has two mutually exclusive appeal options to

challenge a property tax assessment after receiving a decision from the Board of Review: (1) file

an appeal with the PTAB 2 (35 ILCS 200/16-160 (West 2020)) or (2) pay the real estate tax due on

the property (id. § 23-5 (payment under protest)) and then file a tax objection complaint in the

circuit court (id. § 23-10 (tax objection complaint)). Madison Two Associates v. Pappas, 227 Ill.

2d 474, 477 (2008); see also Schlenz v. Castle, 115 Ill. 2d 135, 142 (1986).

       “If a taxpayer seeks review before the [PTAB], he or she is precluded from filing objections

       based upon valuation in the circuit court. In the same way, if a taxpayer files objections

       2
           Final decisions of the PTAB are subject to the Administrative Review Law. See 735 ILCS

5/3-101 to 3-113 (West 2020).

                                                -4-
2023 IL App (2d) 220242

       based upon valuation in the circuit court, the taxpayer cannot file a petition contesting the

       assessment of the subject property with the [PTAB]. 35 ILCS 200/16-160 (West 2002); 86

       Ill. Adm. Code §§ 1910.50(f), (g) (2007) (amended at 31 Ill. Reg. 16222, eff. November

       26, 2007).” Madison Two Associates, 227 Ill. 2d at 477-78.

Thus, at a given time, a taxpayer cannot have two active appeals—one with the PTAB and one

with the circuit court—challenging the same assessment.

¶ 13   Section 16-160 of the Property Tax Code, which is the focus of this appeal, addresses the

PTAB process and provides, in relevant part:

       “[A]ny taxpayer dissatisfied with the decision of a board of review *** as such decision

       pertains to the assessment of his or her property for taxation purposes, *** may, (i) in

       counties with less than 3,000,000 inhabitants within 30 days after the date of written notice

       of the decision of the board of review ***appeal the decision to the [PTAB] for review.

       *** If a petition is filed by a taxpayer, the taxpayer is precluded from filing objections

       based upon valuation, as may otherwise be permitted by Sections 21-175 [(proceedings by

       court)] and 23-5 [(payment under protest)]. However, any taxpayer not satisfied with the

       decision of the board of review *** as such decision pertains to the assessment of his or

       her property need not appeal the decision to the [PTAB] before seeking relief in the courts.”

       (Emphases added.) 35 ILCS 200/16-160 (West 2020).

¶ 14   Similarly, PTAB rule 1910.50(f) provides that, “[i]f a petition is filed by a taxpayer with

the [PTAB], the taxpayer is precluded from filing objections based upon valuation in the Circuit

Court as may otherwise be permitted by Sections 21-175 and 23-5 of the Property Tax Code.

(Section 16-160 of the Code)[.]” 86 Ill. Adm. Code 1910.50(f) (2019). PTAB rule 1910.50(g)

states that, “[i]f a taxpayer files objections based upon valuation in the Circuit Court as permitted

                                                -5-
2023 IL App (2d) 220242

by Sections 21-175 and 23-5 of the Property Tax Code, the taxpayer is precluded from filing a

petition contesting the assessment of the subject property with the [PTAB]. (Section 16-160 of the

Code)[.]” Id. § 1910.50(g).

¶ 15   Proceedings before the PTAB are governed by the rules of practice and procedure it has

promulgated. Madison Two Associates, 227 Ill. 2d at 478; 35 ILCS 200/16-165, 16-170 (West

2020); 86 Ill. Adm. Code 1910. The circuit court’s procedures are governed by the Property Tax

Code, the Civil Practice Law (735 ILCS 5/2-101 to 2-114 (West 2020)) (where the Property Tax

Code is silent), and the rules of court. Madison Two Associates, 227 Ill. 2d at 479.

¶ 16   We agree with plaintiffs that the only reasonable interpretation of the term “filed”

(including its variations) in section 16-160 of the Property Tax Code is a broad one that

encompasses the circumstances here. In the Property Tax Code, the legislature provided two

mutually exclusive avenues to challenge a property tax assessment. A broad reading of the term

“filed” comports with the statutory scheme.

¶ 17   Furthermore, the PTAB rules favor voluntary withdrawals. PTAB rule 1910.50(j)

addresses the withdrawal/dismissal of an appeal by a party and provides:

       “The contesting party may, at any time before the hearing begins, [(1)] move to withdraw

       or [(2)] voluntarily dismiss the appeal, by written request filed with the [PTAB] and all

       other parties to the appeal. Motions to withdraw or voluntarily dismiss an appeal are

       favored by the Board and will be denied only in the most extreme or compelling

       circumstances.” 86 Ill. Adm. Code 1910.50(j) (2019).

Here, plaintiffs moved to withdraw their appeal to the PTAB, and, although the rule distinguishes

between motions to withdraw and voluntary dismissals, the parties agree that there is no

substantive difference between the two types of motions. General civil case law instructs that “[t]he

                                                -6-
2023 IL App (2d) 220242

effect of a dismissal without prejudice is to render the proceedings a nullity and leave the parties

in the same position as if the case had never been filed. *** [A] nonsuit results in a nullity that has

no binding effect ***.” Bank of New York Mellon v. Dubrovay, 2021 IL App (2d) 190540, ¶ 30.

We see no reason why this should not also be the case in property tax appeals. Specifically, here,

the effect of the withdrawal of plaintiffs’ appeal to the PTAB (prior to any hearing or any

substantive rulings by the PTAB and where no intervenors were involved in the case) is that the

appeal was rendered a nullity. Accordingly, the effect of the granting of the withdrawal was to

leave the parties in the same position as if the appeal had never been filed, and plaintiffs were not

thereafter foreclosed from pursuing the other available appeal option, namely, filing in the circuit

court. We believe that this interpretation is the only logical and just result and ensures that only

one appeal option is utilized at one time. The granting of the motion to withdraw left the parties in

the same position as if the appeal had never been filed, and, therefore, plaintiffs could file their

objection complaint in the circuit court.

¶ 18                                     III. CONCLUSION

¶ 19   For the reasons stated, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County and

remand for further proceedings.

¶ 20   Reversed and remanded.

                                                 -7-
2023 IL App (2d) 220242

  In re Application of the County Treasurer & ex officio County Collector of Lake County,
                                 2023 IL App (2d) 220242

 Decision Under Review:       Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County, No. 19-TX-7;
                              the Hon. Daniel B. Shanes, Judge, presiding.

 Attorneys                    David C. Dunkin, Hal R. Morris, Elizabeth A. Thompson, and
 for                          Erik J. VanderWeyden, of Saul Ewing LLP, of Chicago, for
 Appellant:                   appellants.

 Attorneys                    Eric F. Rinehart, State’s Attorney, of Waukegan (Gunnar
 for                          Gunnarsson, and Jamie Helton, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of
 Appellee:                    counsel), for appellee.

                                           -8-