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.

Dome Tax Services Co. v. Weber

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Third District

September 10, 2019

DOME TAX SERVICES COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STEVE WEBER, in His Official Capacity as the Treasurer of Will County, Defendant-Appellee.

          Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit, Will County, Illinois. Circuit No. 16-MR-1985 The Honorable John C. Anderson, Judge, presiding.

          Attorneys for Appellant Mark S. Morthland, of Decatur, for appellant.

          Attorneys for Appellee James W. Glasgow, State's Attorney, of Joliet (Philip A. Mock, Assistant State's Attorney, of counsel), for appellee.

          JUSTICE McDADE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Schmidt and Justice Lytton concurred in the judgment and opinion.

          OPINION

          McDADE JUSTICE

         ¶ 1 In December 2012, plaintiff, Dome Tax Services Company (Dome), purchased a property in Homer Glen, Illinois, in a tax sale. In January 2015, the property owners filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and, subsequently, filed a motion for declaration of sale in error. The trial court entered an agreed order declaring the sale of the property was in error as a result of the bankruptcy filing, and Dome received a refund on the amount paid on the certificate of purchase and subsequent taxes from defendant Will County Treasurer. In July 2016, Dome filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, arguing that the treasurer miscalculated the refund. The parties later filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of the treasurer and against Dome, finding that the treasurer properly calculated the refund. Dome appeals, and we reverse for a recalculation of the refund.

         ¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

         ¶ 3 On December 6, 2012, Dome purchased 16424 S. Alberta Court in Homer Glen, Illinois, in a tax sale. The purchase included the property's unpaid 2011 taxes. On September 24, 2013, Dome paid the 2012 property taxes and on September 22, 2014, paid the 2013 property taxes.

         ¶ 4 On January 8, 2015, the property owners, Paul and Katherine Kirchner, filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. On July 24, the couple filed a motion for declaration of sale in error pursuant to section 21-310 of the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/21-310 (West 2014)). The court entered an agreed order declaring that the sale was in error as a result of the bankruptcy filing. On September 17, 2015, defendant, Will County Treasurer, issued two checks to Dome refunding the amount paid on the certificate of purchase and the subsequent 2012 and 2013 property taxes. The first check was in the amount of $78, 783.83 and the second check was in the amount of $12, 111.21, totaling $90, 895.04.

         ¶ 5 On July 29, 2016, Dome filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, arguing that the treasurer miscalculated the interest on his refund in violation of section 21-315 of the Property Tax Code (id. § 21-315) and that it was entitled to an additional $3000 in interest. The treasurer filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the interest was properly calculated under sections 21-315 and 21-320 of the Property Tax Code (id. §§ 21-315, 21-320). The treasurer explained that Dome purchased the 2011 property taxes on the Homer Glen property after a bid for redemption at a penalty of 1% for six months. Dome then paid the 2012 and 2013 property taxes at a statutory rate of 12% for six months of each year. After the court entered the agreed order, the treasurer calculated Dome's refund as the following: the amount paid for the certificate of purchase with penalty interest at the rate of 1% per month, or 6% for six months, totaling $29, 099.15; the amount paid on the 2012 taxes with interest at a rate of 1% per month from the purchase date to the date Dome was notified of the bankruptcy, totaling $31, 906.16; and the amount paid on the 2013 taxes with interest at a rate of 1% per month from the purchase date to the date Dome was notified of the bankruptcy, totaling $29, 889.74.

         ¶ 6 Dome filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that the treasurer was statutorily required to calculate all the interest under the same statutory formula and requested that the refund be recalculated. The trial court ruled in favor of the treasurer and against Dome, finding that the treasurer properly calculated Dome's refund in accordance with sections 21-315 and 21-320. Dome appealed.

         ¶ 7 II. ANALYSIS

         ¶ 8 Dome challenges the trial court's ruling on the cross-motions for summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment should be granted only where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is clearly entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pielet v. Pielet, 2012 IL 112064, ¶ 29. Whether or not such an issue exists is to be determined by the court from the pleadings, depositions, affidavits, and exhibits in each case. Schierer v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 81 Ill.App.3d 90, 92 (1980). When parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, "they agree that only a question of law is involved and invite the court to decide the issues based on the record." Pielet, 2012 IL 112064, ¶ 28. "However, the mere filing of cross-motions for summary judgment does not establish that there is no issue of material fact, nor does it obligate a court to render summary judgment." Id. A trial court's decision on a motion for summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Gaston v. Founders Insurance Co., 365 Ill.App.3d 303, 314 (2006). We find that there are no issues of material fact and review the parties' arguments to determine if either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

         ¶ 9 Dome argues that the treasurer incorrectly applied two different formulas to calculate the interest on the amount it paid on the certificate of purchase and the amount it paid on the subsequent taxes. Dome asserts that if one formula was applied to calculate the interest on the certificate of purchase under section 21-315, the same formula should be applied to the interest on the subsequent taxes paid under section 21-320. The treasurer alleges that section 21-315 and section 21-320 provide separate statutory requirements for calculating ...


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.