Court Opinion

ID: 9861652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:16:20.617535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:47.321306
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I would hold that the township’s negligent record-keeping defeats its claim of diligence. I would agree with the Kloses that Tucker v. Bunger, 108 Ill. App. 3d 227 (1982), is particularly instructive in this matter. In Tucker, a case involving very similar facts to the instant matter, the court noted that it was the “duty of the town clerk to maintain the survey as part of the records of the township.” Tucker, 108 Ill. App. 3d at 230. However, Tucker did not, as the majority implies, hinge upon an intentional neglect of duty. Rather, the Tucker court noted that a lost or missing land record is not construed against the proponent unless the loss or destruction is attributable to the grantee. Tucker, 108 Ill. App. 3d at 230. Specifically, the Tucker court noted: “The facts of the instant case would appear to fit this exception to the general rule. Here, the grantee of the dedicated lands, Timber Township, was charged with the legal responsibility for maintaining the public record of the dedication. The township inexplicably failed in that responsibility, and further failed to maintain in its files any secondary or reconstructed record so as to provide constructive notice to the unwary.” Tucker, 108 Ill. App. 3d at 230-31. The Tucker court further noted: “The failure to maintain such records in the instant case was undoubtedly a good faith error, but a rule requiring such records to be maintained will insure that in future cases townships and other public record repositories will not seek to benefit from an intentional neglect of duty.” Tucker, 108 Ill. App. 3d at 231. I would hold, as in Tucker, that the township had a duty to maintain the records in the first place and cannot escape the consequences of its failure to properly maintain the records, whether intentionally or in good faith. With Tucker supporting the proposition that the township must maintain the records and failed to do so, I would hold that the township’s failure to maintain the records showed a lack of due diligence in presenting a fact or claim to the trial court at the time of the original action. La Rabida Children’s Hospital & Research Center v. Harrison, 263 Ill. App. 3d 790 (1994). Thus, I would hold it was error for the trial court to grant the township’s section 2 — 1401 petition. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.