Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re Application of Walgenbach

OPINION FILED OCTOBER 19, 1984.

IN RE APPLICATION OF AUDREY WALGENBACH, COUNTY COLLECTOR, APPELLANT (PALATINE NATIONAL BANK, TRUSTEE, ET AL., APPELLEES).


Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Second District; heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of McHenry County, the Hon. Leonard Brody, Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

Rehearing denied November 30, 1984.

Defendants, tax objectors, appealed from the judgment of the circuit court of McHenry County denying their objections to taxes levied for two school districts for the year 1979. The appellate court reversed (117 Ill. App.3d 14), and we allowed plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal (87 Ill.2d R. 315).

A stipulation contained in the record shows that on December 1, 1978, School District No. 200, McHenry County, issued $1,650,000 in bonds for working-cash-fund purposes and provided for an annual tax levy for funds to make payment of the principal and interest. It was also stipulated that on September 1, 1978, School District No. 158, McHenry and Kane counties, issued $425,000 in bonds for working-cash-fund purposes and provided for an annual tax levy for funds to pay principal and interest. At the time of the issuance of the bonds each district had a working cash fund; the balance remaining in the working cash fund of District No. 200 was $54,704, and the balance in the working cash fund of District No. 158 was $12,037. Defendants contended in the circuit court that, because the school districts had previously created working cash funds, they were without authority to issue bonds to replenish those funds, and the taxes levied to pay principal and interest on the bonds were invalid.

Section 20-1 of the School Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 122, par. 20-1) authorized school districts with populations of less than 500,000 to create, maintain and administer a "working cash fund." Section 20-2, in pertinent part, provided:

"For the purpose of creating a working cash fund, the school board of any such district may incur an indebtedness and issue bonds as evidence thereof in an amount or amounts * * *." Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 122, par. 20-2.

The School Code also provided:

"For the purpose of providing moneys for a working cash fund, the school board of any such school district may also levy annually upon all the taxable property of their district a tax, known as the `working cash fund tax,' not to exceed * * *." Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 122 par. 20-3.

"Any school district may abolish its working cash fund, upon the adoption of a resolution so providing, and directing the transfer of any balance in such fund to the educational fund at the close of the then current school year." Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 122, par. 20-8.

"Nothing in this Article prevents a school district which has abolished or abated its working cash fund from again creating a working cash fund in the manner provided in this Article." Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 122, par. 20-9.

In reversing the judgment the appellate court held that section 20-2 authorized issuance of bonds only for the creation of a working cash fund and that the only means of obtaining additional funds for an existing working cash fund is by tax levy.

Plaintiff contends that as stated in section 20-1 the purpose of article 20 of the School Code is to enable a school district "to have in its treasury at all times sufficient money to meet demands thereon for ordinary and necessary expenditures for corporate purposes." She argues that the various provisions of article 20 must be construed together and that so construed the school districts were authorized to issue the bonds here involved. Defendants contend that the word "create" can be defined only as it was in the opinion of the appellate court. Citing the differences between the provisions of section 34-31 of the School Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 122, par. 34-31), which concerns school districts with populations in excess of 500,000 and section 20-2, they argue that the General Assembly clearly intended that section 20-2 authorize the issuance of bonds for the sole purpose of creating a working cash fund.

The parties are in agreement that the purpose of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent as expressed in the statute and that a statute will not be construed so as to lead to absurd, inconvenient or unjust consequences.

An examination of article 20 of the School Code shows that the purpose of the working cash fund is to provide a reserve upon which school districts may draw in anticipation of tax collections. Moneys in the working cash fund may be transferred to the operating funds of the district in anticipation of the collection of taxes levied for those funds, and when the anticipated taxes are collected, the working cash fund is reimbursed. Section 20-5 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 122, par. 20-5) places limitations on the use of the moneys to the credit of a working cash fund, and section 20-6 (Ill. Rev. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.