Court Opinion

ID: 9522392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:24:36.212121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:42.199574
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE STOUDER, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur with the majority that the judgment of the trial court on the conversion claim was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the award of damages was not excessive, but I must disagree with the majority on the issue of whether attorney fees were properly awarded. As the majority states, the award of attorney fees must be based upon a finding by the trial court that a violation of section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act occurred. I do not agree with the majority that the trial judge could ever have found the village of Chebanse guilty of a violation of section 1983 upon which to base his award of attorney fees. I base my belief upon the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Parratt v. Taylor (1981), 451 U.S. 527, 68 L. Ed. 2d 420, 101 S. Ct. 1908, where the Supreme Court found a conversion by State prison officials who were not acting as a result of an established State procedure did not require a predeprivation hearing and, therefore, that no section 1983 violation could be maintained against the State. The Supreme Court reasons that an adequate remedy existed under State law and a post-deprivation hearing was all that was required. Like prison officials in Parratt, who confiscated an inmate’s hobby materials, the village board of Chebanse was not acting under the authority of any municipal ordinance or State law or procedure. As the United States Supreme Court stated in Parratt v. Taylor (1981), 451 U.S. 527, 543, 68 L. Ed. 2d 420, 434, 101 S. Ct. 1908, 1917: “Indeed the deprivation occurred as a result of the unauthorized failure of agents of the State to follow established State procedure. There is no contention that the procedures themselves were inadequate *** Moreover, the State of Nebraska has provided respondent with the means by which he can receive redress for the deprivation.” Here the State of Illinois provided adequate redress. It is often said due process requires an opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” However, the United States Supreme court has clearly rejected the proposition that this hearing must necessarily take place prior to the deprivation. I do not believe that this situation mandated a predeprivation hearing both because of the distinction made by the Supreme Court in Parratt and the adequate conversion remedy provided by Illinois. This plaintiff has had all the process which is due-him, and no section 1983 claim can now stand. It has long been the law in this State that attorney fees cannot be taxed as costs absent statutory authority. (14 Ill. L. & Prac. Costs sec. 54 (1968).) Therefore, I would not have remanded this case but instead I would have reversed the award of attorney fees outright.