Aasen v. Rickert

2018 IL App (2d) 170036

100 N.E.3d 524

Carole E. AASEN, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants,

v.David J. RICKERT, Treasurer and ex officio Collector of Kane County, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 2–17–0036

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

Opinion filed February 5, 2018

Rehearing denied March 19, 2018

Thomas J. McNulty, Steven F. Pflaum, David S. Martin, and Amanda E. Fraerman, of Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP, of Chicago, for appellants.

Joseph H. McMahon, State's Attorney, of St. Charles (Lindsay A. Hatzis and Joseph F. Lulves, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

JUSTICE McLAREN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Plaintiffs, Carole Aasen and approximately 665 other tax objectors (Objectors), appeal the judgment of the trial court denying their motion for summary judgment and dismissing their tax objection complaints against defendant, David J. Rickert, treasurer and ex officio collector of Kane County (Collector). The Objectors argue that the Kane County clerk lacked the authority to use the Illinois Department of Revenue's amended apportionments for tax year 2012 to collect taxes in tax year 2014. We affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 A. Stipulated Facts

¶ 4 The parties stipulated to the relevant facts in these three cases, consolidated in the trial court, as follows. The Objectors each own real property in a part of Kane County within a taxing district that lies in at least one other county. Specifically, the Objectors own property located in the following taxing districts lying in the following counties:

District Counties
Elgin School District U46    Kane, Du Page, and Cook
Elgin College District 509   Kane, Cook, and De Kalb
Elgin City                   Kane and Cook
Gail Borden Library          Kane and Cook

¶ 5 The drafters of the 1970 Illinois Constitution, recognizing the need for the fair apportionment of the burden of taxation of property in taxing districts that overlap more than one county, provided as follows:

"The General Assembly may provide by law for fair apportionment of the burden of taxation of property situated in taxing districts that lie in more than one county." Ill. Const. 1970, art. IX, § 7.

¶ 6 Accordingly, section 18–155 of the Property Tax Code (Code) ( 35 ILCS 200/18–155 (West 2014) ), entitled "Apportionment of taxes for districts in two or more counties," provides for the fair apportionment of that burden. To accomplish this goal, section 18–155 authorizes the Department of Revenue (DOR) to apportion the amounts to be raised by taxation on property in a district that overlaps multiple counties, so that each county bears the burden as though all parts of the district had been assessed at the same proportion of actual value. It also authorizes the DOR to certify to each county clerk the percentage constituting that county's burden, which the clerk will apply to the property of the taxing district that lies in that county. 35 ILCS 200/18–155(c) (West 2014).

¶ 7 Section 18–155 of the Code provides in relevant part:

"The burden of taxation of property in taxing districts that lie in more than one county shall be fairly apportioned as provided in Article IX, Section 7, of the Constitution of 1970.

* * * When the Department has received a written request for equalization for overlapping tax districts as provided in this Section, the Department shall promptly notify the county clerk and county treasurer of each county affected by that request that tax bills with respect to property in the parts of the county which are affected by the request may not be prepared or mailed until the Department certifies the apportionment among counties of the taxing districts' levies, except as provided in subsection (c) of this Section. To apportion, the Department shall:

(a) On or before December 31 of that year cause an assessment ratio study to be made in each township in which each of the named overlapping taxing districts lies, using equalized assessed values as certified by the county clerk, and an analysis of property transfers prior to January 1 of that year. The property transfers shall be in an amount deemed reasonable and proper by the Department. The Department may conduct hearings, at which the evidence shall be limited to the written presentation of assessment ratio study data.

(b) Request from the County Clerk in each County in which the overlapping taxing districts lie, certification of the portion of the assessed value of the prior year for each overlapping taxing district's portion of each township. Beginning with the 1999 taxable year, for those counties that classify property by county ordinance pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 4 of Article IX of the Illinois Constitution, the certification shall be listed by property class as provided in the classification ordinance. The clerk shall return the certification within 30 days of receipt of the request.

(c) Use the township assessment ratio studies to apportion the amount to be raised by taxation upon property within the district so that each county in which the district lies bears that burden of taxation as though all parts of the overlapping taxing district had been assessed at the same proportion of actual value. The Department shall certify to each County Clerk, by March 15 , the percent of burden. Except as provided below, the County Clerk shall apply the percentage to the extension as provided in Section 18–45 to determine the amount of tax to be raised in the county.

If the Department of Revenue does not certify the percent of burden in the time prescribed, the county clerk shall use the most recent prior certification to determine the amount of tax to be raised in the county.

If the use of a prior certified percentage results in over or under extension for the overlapping taxing district in the county using same, the county clerk shall make appropriate adjustments in the subsequent year . Any adjustments necessitated by the procedure authorized by this Section shall be made by increasing or decreasing the tax extension by fund for each taxing district where a prior certified percentage was used. No tax rate limit shall render any part of a tax levy illegally excessive which has been apportioned as herein provided. The percentages certified by the Department shall remain until changed by reason of another assessment ratio study made under this Section ." (Emphases added.) 35 ILCS 200/18–155 (West 2014).

¶ 8 In this case, for the tax year 2012, the DOR did not certify the apportionments for the districts at issue to the county clerks by March 15, 2013. Accordingly, the Kane County clerk used the most recent prior certification to determine the Objectors' property taxes for tax year 2012.

¶ 9 On May 15, 2013, the DOR certified the apportionments for tax year 2012 to the county clerks. The DOR's apportionment percentage for Kane County was lower than in the certification used for the tax bills issued for tax year 2012. On March 14, 2014, the DOR certified the apportionments for tax year 2013. On March 26, 2014, when the Kane County clerk extended the tax burden for tax year 2013, he reduced the amount of tax extended to adjust for the over-extension in tax year 2012. The parties do not dispute that the Kane County clerk had the authority pursuant to section 18–155(c) of the Code to make this adjustment.

¶ 10 On May 21, 2014, the DOR certified a "Corrected" apportionment of the districts' tax burdens for tax year 2012, and on December 12, 2014, the DOR certified "Amended" apportionments of the districts' tax burdens. For tax year 2014, the Kane County clerk applied the amended apportionments to the extension for tax year 2012. On February 9, 2015, the Kane County clerk informed the Objectors via letter that:

"[F]or the past two years the tax rates for the taxing districts [at issue] were disproportionately low due to an issue with the percent of burden that Kane County property owners pay to the [taxing districts at issue].

* * * The percentages the Department of Revenue assigned to Kane County were too low and were too high in DuPage and Cook Counties based upon numbers they received from this office in 2011 and 2012 and did not reflect an accounting change due to a software issue.

The software issue has been resolved, but the affected parcels will have to pay an increased rate for the 2014 tax year to make up the difference. As a result, the tax rate for the affected districts will increase."

Thus, in 2015, when the Kane County clerk extended the tax burden in the Objectors' districts for tax year 2014, the extension included a "Manual Adjustment" that reflected the amended apportionments for tax year 2012.

¶ 11 The apportionments for tax year 2012 were:

District     Originally extended by   Certified by DOR         Amended by DOR Dec
             clerk May 2013           May 2013 & adjusted by   2014, with "Manual
             using prior certified    clerk March 2014         Adjustment" included in
             percentage                                        2015
Elgin U46    34.28%                   31.54%                   33.63%
Elgin 509    61.62%                   60.53%                   61.86%
Elgin City   79.61%                   78.47%                   79.60%
Borden       68.21%                   66.40%                   68.09%

¶ 12 B. Proceedings

¶ 13 On October 1, 2015, the Objectors filed tax objection complaints against the Collector, pursuant to section 23–5 of the Code ( 35 ILCS 200/23–5 (West 2014) ), alleging that the Kane County clerk's application of the amended apportionments for tax year 2012 to the collection of taxes for tax year 2014 was void and illegal pursuant to, inter alia , section 18–155 of the Code.

¶ 14 The Objectors moved for summary judgment. On January 10, 2017, after hearing the parties' arguments, the trial court denied the Objectors' motion for summary judgment and dismissed their complaints, stating, in part:

"[T]he language of Section 18–155, the objective in ensuring correct,

...