Jackson Generation, LLC v. The Cnty. of Will

1

2024 IL App (3d) 220328

JACKSON GENERATION, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE COUNTY OF WILL, a Body Politic; RHONDA NOVAK, in Her Official Capacity as Will County Supervisor of Assessments; TIM BROPHY, in His Official Capacity as Will County Treasurer and in His Capacity as ex officio Will County Collector; JACKSON TOWNSHIP, a Body Politic; DELILAH LEGRETT, in Her Official Capacity as the Jackson Township Assessor; THE ELWOOD FIRE DISTRICT; THE FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT OF WILL COUNTY; JACKSON TOWNSHIP ROAD FUNDS; JACKSON TOWNSHIP TOWN FUNDS; JOLIET JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT 525; JOLIET TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 204; LARAWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT 70C; THE MANHATTAN- ELWOOD PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT; THE VILLAGE OF ELWOOD; THE VILLAGE OF ELWOOD ROAD AND BRIDGE; THE WILL COUNTY PUBLIC BUILDING COMMISSION; WILL COUNTY TAX FUNDS; ELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT 203; Defendants-Appellees.

No. 3-22-0328

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Third District

May 9, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit, Will County, Illinois. Circuit No. 21-MR-2099 Honorable Roger D Rickmon, Judge, Presiding.

Attorneys for Appellant:

David D. Streicker, Dmitry Shifrin, and Benjamin M. Jacobi, of Polsinelli PC, of Chicago, for appellant.

Attorneys for Appellee:

James W. Glasgow, State's Attorney, of Joliet (Scott Pyles Assistant State's Attorney, of counsel), for appellees County of Will et al.

Mallory A. Milluzzi and Scott E. Nemanich, of Klein, Thorpe & Jenkins, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellee Elwood Consolidated School District 203.

Carl Buck and Frank S. Cservenyak Jr., of Rathbun, Cservenyak & Kozol, LLC, of Joliet, for appellee Joliet Township High School District 204 et al.

John Izzo and Graeme J. Quinn, of Hauser, Izzo, Petrarca, Gleason & Stillman LLC, of Oak Brook, for appellee Laraway Community Consolidated School District 70C.

John Motylinski, of Ottosen Dinolfo Hasenbalg & Castaldo Ltd., of Naperville, for appellee Elwood Fire Protection District.

Megan M. Olson, of Tracy, Johnson & Wilson, of Joliet, for appellee Jackson Township et al.

Scott L. Ginsburg, of Robbins Schwartz Nicholas Lifton & Taylor, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellee Manhattan-Elwood Public Library District.

JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justice Davenport concurred in the judgment and opinion. Presiding Justice McDade concurred in part and dissented in part, with opinion.

OPINION

BRENNAN JUSTICE

¶ 1 Plaintiff, Jackson Generation, LLC, appeals from the dismissal with prejudice of its amended complaint against various governmental units, property tax officials, and taxing districts raising claims for declaratory relief and due process violations and, alternatively, a tax objection claim. Although sanctions claims remain pending in the circuit court, we have jurisdiction pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Plaintiff owns property in the Village of Elwood (located in Jackson Township and Will County) on which it is developing a utility-scale natural gas fueled combined-cycle power generation plant (the project). This case arises out of an increase in the 2020 tax assessment for the property. According to plaintiff, without receiving proper notice or an opportunity to be heard, the property at issue was split into two parcels and reassessed for the 2020 assessment year to a substantially higher total value, notwithstanding that the project was only 4.2% complete as of January 1, 2020. Specifically, its property with a permanent index number (PIN) of 10-11-08-300-013-0000 (0000 parcel) was split into PIN 10-11-08-300-013-0010 (0010 parcel-comprising 20% of the original parcel) and PIN 10-11-08-300-013-0020 (0020 parcel- comprising 80% of the original parcel). At the time of the split, the parcels were assessed at values of $12,192 and $78,324, respectively (equaling the presplit assessed value total of $90,516), but then reassessed to values of $8,414,968 and $46,400,677, respectively-resulting in an increase of over 60,000% to the total property value assessment. In turn, the total property tax liability for 2020 was increased from approximately $7500 to over $4.1 million.

¶ 4 Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on August 16, 2021, with a complaint against Will County, Jackson Township, and the Jackson Township Assessor. In its initial complaint, plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that defendants violated plaintiff's procedural and substantive due process rights with respect to the issuance and enforcement of the tax assessment on both parcels, requested a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing enforcement and collection of the tax assessment, and, alternatively, raised a statutory tax objection claim. On September 29, 2021, plaintiff filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction preventing an attempt to collect the 2020 property taxes. Following briefing and a hearing, on October 5, 2021, the circuit court denied the motion.

¶ 5 On November 1, 2021, Will County filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2020)), arguing that it was an improper party because it exercises no control over either the assessment process or the collection of property taxes and that plaintiff failed to challenge the assessment through the proper statutory procedure.

¶ 6 On November 2, 2021, Jackson Township and its assessor filed a combined motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619.1 (id. § 2-619.1). The Jackson Township defendants sought dismissal under section 2-615 (id. § 2-615) on the basis that they were misjoined parties who had no ability to provide the requested relief and argued that plaintiff's claims were barred by other affirmative matter pursuant to section 2-619 in that the complaint amounted to a procedurally improper tax objection case.

¶ 7 Prior to responding to the motions to dismiss, on November 29, 2021, plaintiff paid the entire tax bill under protest and then filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint instanter. On December 6, 2021, the circuit court denied the motion without prejudice to refile, if necessary, after the court ruled on the motions to dismiss the initial complaint. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the denial of leave to file its amended complaint but also filed a combined response to the pending motions to dismiss, arguing that each defendant played a role in the unfounded assessment increase and were all necessary parties. However, on January 14, 2022, the circuit court granted plaintiff's motion to reconsider the denial of leave to file its amended complaint instanter and thus did not rule on the motions to dismiss the initial complaint.

¶ 8 We recount the allegations of the amended complaint, the relevant arguments set forth in the briefing on defendants' motions to dismiss, and the circuit court's ruling thereon.

¶ 9 A. Amended Complaint

¶ 10 Plaintiff added several named defendants to its amended complaint. The first set of defendants were Will County Rhonda Novak (in her official capacity as Will County Supervisor of Assessments) (Supervisor), and Tim Brophy (in his official capacity as Will County Treasurer and in his capacity as ex officio Will County Collector) (Treasurer) (collectively the County defendants). The second set of defendants were Jackson Township and Delilah Legrett (in her official capacity as the Jackson Township Assessor) (Assessor) (collectively the Jackson Township defendants).

¶ 11 The third set of defendants were the taxing districts (collectively the taxing district defendants) listed on plaintiff's property tax bill for both parcels 0010 and 0020, alleged by Jackson Township to be necessary parties to effectuate the requested relief and identified pursuant to section 23-10 of the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/23-10 (West 2020) (requiring a tax objection complaint to list the taxing districts against which the complaint is directed and include a summary of the reasons for the tax objections)). For parcel 0010, the taxing district defendants were Elwood Fire District, Forest Preserve District of Will County, Jackson Township Road Funds, Jackson Township Town Funds, Joliet Junior College District 525, Joliet Township High School District 204, Laraway School District 70C, Manhattan-Elwood Public Library District, Village of Elwood, Village of Elwood Road and Bridge, Will County Public Building Commission, and Will County Tax Funds. For parcel 0020, the taxing district defendants were identical, with the exception of a different elementary school district-Elwood School District 203 (instead of Laraway School District 70C) (collectively the taxing district defendants).

¶ 12 Plaintiff included seven counts in its amended complaint seeking declaratory relief, claims for procedural and substantive due process violations, and, alternatively, a tax objection claim. Namely, counts I and II sought a declaratory judgment that defendants violated plaintiff's procedural due process rights with respect to the issuance and enforcement of the tax assessment on the 0010 parcel and the 0020 parcel, respectively. Count III sought a declaratory judgment that the reassessment of the parcels violated plaintiff's substantive due process rights. Counts IV through VI alleged, respectively, the underlying claims for procedural and substantive due process violations in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018). Plaintiff alleged that the tax assessments were void given the due process violations. Count VII alleged an alternative tax objection claim and sought placement of a constructive trust on the...