Court Opinion

ID: 9860427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:21:42.344703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:22:29.373286
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SCHMIDT, dissenting: I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board’s (the PTAB) order dismissing Aux Sable’s property tax appeal was clearly erroneous. The majority states that the PTAB “has provided no factual basis for its decision to allow Aux Sable’s motion to dismiss.” (Emphasis added.) 397 Ill. App. 3d at 828. Title 86, section 1910.50(j), of the Administrative Code states: “(j) The contesting party may, at any time before the hearing begins, move to withdraw or voluntarily dismiss the appeal, by written request filed with the Board 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), as amended at 31 Ill. Reg. 16234, eff. November 26, 2007. Is not Aux Sable’s motion to voluntarily dismiss its own appeal, coupled with the Administrative Code’s pronouncement that motions to voluntarily dismiss an appeal are favored, at least some basis for the PTAB’s decision? While the majority mentions section 1910.50(j) in the facts section of its opinion, it totally ignores the rule’s existence in its analysis and instead chooses to focus on an “unwritten policy.” 397 Ill. App. 3d at 829. What cannot be ignored is that the school district was well aware of its rights under the Tax Code and Administrative Code to appeal the valuation of Aux Sable’s property. 35 ILCS 200/16—160 (West 2004); 86 Ill. Adm. Code §1910.60(b) (2004). It admittedly chose not to file an appeal regarding the valuation of Aux Sable’s property. It argues that the PTAB would have refused to recognize its appeal. At oral argument, the school district’s counsel acknowledged that had Aux Sable never appealed the valuation of the property, “there would be no case.” Counsel further agreed that the school district would be “right where the PTAB put [it]” but for Aux Sable’s appeal. That is, in a position where it must accept the original valuation of the property. The school district had a statutory right to file its own appeal of the valuation. It did not do so. We do not know what the PTAB would have done had the appeal been filed. The school district’s argument is essentially: Had we filed an appeal, the PTAB would have committed reversible error by failing to acknowledge our appeal. The school district did not file an appeal. It was not error to grant Aux Sable’s motion to voluntarily dismiss its own appeal, the sole appeal pending. We cannot reverse for error that never occurred. I would affirm.