Court Opinion

ID: 9743580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:37:14.760532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:42.230883
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HARRISON, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree with Justice Rarick that Supreme Court Rule 305(i) (134 Ill. 2d R. 305(i)) renders this appeal moot as to the 220 acres of vacant ground. Justice Welch argues that the requirements of the rule have not, in fact, been satisfied “because the transfer to trust GSA33 did not take place after the order became final within the meaning of Rule 305(i),” (228 Ill. App. 3d at 453) but this is not so. A final judgment is one which fixes, determines, and disposes of the parties’ rights regarding the litigation or some definite, separate part of the litigation. (Pottorf v. Clark (1985), 134 Ill. App. 3d 349, 351, 480 N.E.2d 533, 535.) The circuit court’s judgment of September 27, 1990, clearly met this standard. Contrary to Justice Welch’s assertion, the judgment did not have to await the passage of 30 days following its entry until it became final. Under the rules of our supreme court, written judgments, of which this is one, become final not later than the date on which they are signed and filed with the clerk. (134 Ill. 2d R. 272.) In no instance of which I am aware do the rules condition a judgment’s finality on the expiration of an additional 30-day period. To accept Justice Welch’s view would thus require us to hold that the term “final judgment” has a different meaning under Rule 305(i) (134 Ill. 2d R. 305(i)) than it does elsewhere in the court’s rules. As Justice Welch himself acknowledges, however, rules of court are to be construed as are statutes. It is a well-established principle of statutory construction that where the same words appear more than once in a statute, they should be given a consistent meaning unless legislative intent to the contrary is clearly expressed. (Mirabella v. Retirement Board (1990), 198 Ill. App. 3d 971, 974, 556 N.E.2d 686, 688.) Our supreme court has manifested no intent that a “final judgment” should be assigned any different meaning under Supreme Court Rule 305(i) (134 Ill. 2d R. 305(i)) than it has under the other rules of court. If the supreme court wanted to make Rule 305(i) (134 Ill. 2d R. 305(i)) a special case, it could easily have so provided. But it did not, and this court has no authority to revise or refine that court’s duly adopted rules. (See 134 Ill. 2d R. 3.) Yet, that is precisely what Justice Welch would have us do. Justice Welch, of course, professes that he is simply construing Rule 305(i) (134 Ill. 2d R. 305(i)) “in a manner that avoids unjust results.” (228 Ill. App. 3d at 454.) Even that rationale is untenable, however, for the injustice he perceives is illusory. Justice Welch contends that unless his interpretation is adopted, the party prevailing at trial will always be able to “defeat the right of the opposing party to seek a stay and consequently a meaningful appeal from the judgment, by doing what the Estate did here” (228 Ill. App. 3d at 453), namely, transferring the real property immediately upon entry of the judgment. This is incorrect. Under the express terms of Rule 305(1) (134 Ill. 2d R. 305(1)), a transfer of real property to a third party after a final judgment will prevent the rights of the third party to that property from being affected by a subsequent reversal or modification of the judgment only “[i]f a stay is not perfected within 30 days of the entry of the judgment appealed from, or within any extension of the time granted under subparagraph (aX2) of [the] rule.” The converse of this principle is that where a stay is perfected within the specified time, the rights of the third party to property acquired following the judgment may be affected by the judgment’s reversal or modification. Accordingly, even where the real property is transferred to a third party immediately after entry of the final judgment, the case will still not be rendered moot so long as the party who lost at trial ultimately perfects its stay within the time specified by the rule. The only party who might be prejudiced by this procedure is the third party who acquires the property immediately following the judgment, for his rights to that property may be lost or encumbered if the appellant is ultimately successful. In my view, however, this is not an unduly harsh result, for the third party should certainly know, or be able to discover through reasonable inquiry, that the property he has acquired or seeks to acquire was the subject of a recent judgment. That, in turn, should place him on notice of the possibility that a stay might be obtained and that his rights to the property might one day be encumbered or lost. If he nevertheless decides to proceed with the acquisition, the risk will be his to bear. Presumably, this risk will be reflected in the price he is willing to pay or the terms he is willing to accept for acquisition of the property. In sum, the City’s right to appeal has not been and could not be defeated merely because the Estate opted to transfer the property to the trust immediately after entry of the judgment. To preserve its rights, the City had only to perfect a stay within the period prescribed by Rule 305(i) (134 Ill. 2d R. 305(i)). That simply was not done. It was not done within 30 days of judgment. It was not done ever. While I remain profoundly sympathetic to the continued plight of the residents of East St. Louis, we cannot now rewrite the rules of court to grant them some special exemption. Under Rule 305(i) (134 Ill. 2d R. 305(i)), this appeal is moot and should be dismissed. I dissent from Justice Rarick’s opinion because I would not limit the dismissal to the 220 acres. The appeal as to City Hall should be dismissed as well. Justice Rarick attempts to differentiate these properties based on considerations of public policy, but his public policy arguments are no more persuasive to me now than they were when first advanced by Justice Kams in his dissenting opinion in McLorn v. City of East St. Louis (1982), 105 Ill. App. 3d 148, 434 N.E.2d 44. To the extent that he would grant East St. Louis protection from having certain of its property subject to execution, Justice Rarick has cloaked the City with at least a limited form of sovereign immunity. (See 105 Ill. App. 3d at 152, 434 N.E.2d at 47.) This is so because, as Justice Rarick himself concedes, “sovereign immunity includes not only the right to sue, but also the right to satisfy a judgment rendered upon suit.” (228 Ill. App. 3d at 444.) Under section 4 of article XIII of the 1970 Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII, §4), however, sovereign immunity has now been abolished “[e]xcept as the General Assembly may provide.” This abolition applies not only to the immunity of the State but to the immunity of municipalities as well. (Henderson v. Foster (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 343, 349, 319 N.E.2d 789, 793.) Accordingly, the only way the City here could possibly be immunized from execution against any of its property is through legislation enacted by the General Assembly. No such legislative immunity has been granted. What the legislature has done is enact article IX of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 85, pars. 9 — 101 through 9 — 107). Far from conferring immunity, that statute indicates that it is the public policy of this State for local public entities to pay tort judgments against them. To meet this obligation, the statute gives such entities authorization to pay off judgments in installments over more than one fiscal year (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 85, par. 9 — 104) and permits them to issue bonds (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 85, par. 9 — 105) and to levee taxes (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 85, par. 9 — 107). Unlike Justice Rarick, however, I do not regard this as an exclusive list of the means by which judgments against municipalities can be satisfied. Under article XIII of our constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII), all presumptions must now be exercised against allowing governmental immunity. Given this, I believe that the only proper way to construe article IX of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 85, pars. 9 — 101 through 9 — 107) is as a means of empowering public entities to meet their judgment obligations in ways that might not otherwise be available to them absent the legislation. In other words, I view the statute as a grant of additional authority to judgment debtors who are public entities. It is not and does not purport to be a limitation on the rights of judgment creditors to enforce their judgments in the ways otherwise available to them. At no point does it expressly or impliedly prohibit judgment creditors from attaching municipal property, and it certainly offers no basis for making the distinction drawn by Justice Rarick between property that serves “a cognizable municipal function” and that which does not. Justice Rarick is rightly concerned about the possible disruption in city services which might result if judgment creditors are permitted to attach municipal property. As we noted in McLorn, however, that is a problem which is better addressed to the General Assembly than to this court. (McLorn, 105 Ill. App. 3d at 154, 434 N.E.2d at 48.) Where, as here, the constitution and statutes have addressed a matter, we have no authority to act as a “superlegislature” under the guise of public policy, for “[w]hen the [General Assembly] speaks upon a subject, upon which it has the constitutional power to legislate, public policy is what the statute, passed by it, indicates.” (Henderson v. Foster (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 343, 347-48, 319 N.E.2d 789, 792.) For the foregoing reasons, the entire appeal should be dismissed.