No IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOR THE SECOND DISTRICT. Plaintiff-Appellant, Defendant-Appellee

Transcription

1 No IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOR THE SECOND DISTRICT VILLAGE OF LAKE IN THE HILLS, an Illinois municipal corporation, On Appeal from the Circuit Court of McHenry County, Illinois v. DENNIS NIKLAUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Defendant-Appellee No. 12 SC 2559 Honorable John D. Bolger, Judge Presiding. BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE IN SUPPORT OF THE VILLAGE OF LAKE IN THE HILLS Brian Day Roger Huebner Illinois Municipal League 500 East Capitol Avenue Springfield, Illinois (217) Attorneys for THE ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE

2 Table of Contents Points and Authorities... ii I. Interest of the Amicus Curiae... 1 II. Argument... 2 A. The Municipal Code grants the Court subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce administrative judgments A court has subject-matter jurisdiction in a matter if the legislature enacts legislation creating a new justiciable matter The Illinois General Assembly created the authorization for the judicial enforcement of administrative-adjudication judgments under Division of the Illinois Municipal Code...4 (a) The enforcement of ordinances is vital to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community...4 (b) Administrative adjudication is the best venue for enforcing ordinances...5 (c) Administrative adjudication judgments were not enforceable because it required a separate court action...5 (d) The General Assembly sought to address the lack of enforceability of administrative adjudication judgments by enacting Division (e) Division of the Municipal Code designates administrative adjudication orders as enforceable judgments...7 (f) State statute designates the courts as the proper venue for the enforcement of judgments...8 B. The Trial Court improperly interpreted the statutes III. Conclusion i

3 Points and Authorities I. Interest of the Amicus Curiae ILCS 5/1-8-1 (West 2010)...1 II. Argument... 2 A. The Municipal Code grants the Court subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce administrative judgments A court has subject-matter jurisdiction in a matter if the legislature enacts legislation creating a new justiciable matter....3 In re M.M.,156 Ill.2d 53, 64 (1993)...3 Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., 199 Ill.2d 325 (2002) The Illinois General Assembly created the authorization for the judicial enforcement of administrative-adjudication judgments under Division of the Illinois Municipal Code ILCS 5/ through 65 ILCS 5/ (West 2012)...4 (a) The enforcement of ordinances is vital to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community...4 Julie Ann Sebastian, et al., Survey of Illinois Law: Administrative Review Law, 23 S.Ill.U.L.J. 803(1999)...4 (b) Administrative adjudication is the best venue for enforcing ordinances...5 ii

4 (c) Administrative adjudication judgments were not enforceable because it required a separate court action...5 James M. Reilly, Administrative Adjudication Offers First-Class Justice, 89 Ill.B.J. 147 (2001)...5 (d) The General Assembly sought to address the lack of enforceability of administrative adjudication judgments by enacting Division th General Assembly Senate Transcription Debate, March 19, 1997, page 114 (statement of Senator Obama)...7 (e) Division of the Municipal Code designates administrative adjudication orders as enforceable judgments ILCS 5/ (West 2012)...8 (f) State statute designates the courts as the proper venue for the enforcement of judgments...8 Circuit Court of Cook County, General Order No. 1.2, ILCS 5/ (West 2010)...9 Haugens v. Holmes, 314 Ill. App. 166 (2 Dist. 1942) ILCS 5/ (West 2012) ILCS 5/ (West 2012) ILCS 5/ (West 2012) ILCS 5/ (West 2012) ILCS 5/ (West 2012) iii

5 97 th General Assembly Senate Transcription Debate, May 22, 2012, page (statement of Senator Haine) th General Assembly House of Representatives Transcription Debate, May 30, 2012, page 21 (statement of Representative Williams) B. The Trial Court improperly interpreted the statutes Gruszeczka v. Illinois Workers Compensation Com n, 2013 IL People v. Almore, 241 Ill.2d 387 (2011) Lansing v. Southwest Airlines Co., 2012 IL App (1 st ) Bowne of Chicago, Inc. v. Human Rights Com n, 301 Ill. App.3d 116, 121 (4 Dist. 1998) Eads v. Heritage Enterprises, Inc., 204 Ill.2d 92 (2003) III. Conclusion iv

6 I. Interest of the Amicus Curiae The Illinois Municipal League is a not-for-profit, non-political association of 1,124 municipalities in the State of Illinois. State statute designates the League as the instrumentality of its members. 65 ILCS 5/1-8-1 (West 2010). The League's mission is to articulate, defend, maintain, and promote the interests and concerns of Illinois communities. The League and its member communities have a specific interest in this matter. This case threatens the enforceability of administrativeadjudication judgments. Municipalities across the State have enacted administrative-adjudication systems under Division of the Illinois Municipal Code. The legislature designed the systems to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Illinois communities and to reduce the burden on the courts. If the Circuit Court s decision were to stand, Illinois communities would be left without the authority to enforce municipal judgments, and the administrative-adjudication process would be rendered nugatory. 1

7 II. ARGUMENT This is a case of statutory interpretation. Does the circuit court have the authority to enforce a municipal administrative-adjudication order? It does. An examination of the legislative intent of the policy behind administrative adjudication, of the legislative history of the statute, and of the operation of both the administrative-adjudication statute and the Code of Civil Procedure indicates that the General Assembly intended the judicial enforcement of municipal adjudication judgments. A. The Municipal Code grants the Court subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce administrative judgments. The trial court found that the administrative-adjudication statute was unclear as to whether the courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce an administrative judgment. The courts have that jurisdiction. A court has subject-matter jurisdiction in a matter if the legislature enacts legislation creating a new justiciable matter. The Illinois General Assembly created the authorization for the judicial enforcement of administrative-adjudication judgments under Division 2

8 1-2.1 of the Illinois Municipal Code. Therefore, the court has subjectmatter jurisdiction to enforce the Village s administrative-adjudication judgments. 1. A court has subject-matter jurisdiction in a matter if the legislature enacts legislation creating a new justiciable matter. Subject-matter jurisdiction is a court s authority to adjudicate the general question involved and to grant the requested relief. In re M.M.,156 Ill.2d 53, 64 (1993). The Illinois Constitution grants circuit courts original jurisdiction (with limited exception) of all justiciable matters. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, 9. Subject-matter jurisdiction exists, as a matter of law, if the matter before the court is justiciable. The Constitution, itself, does not define the term justiciable matter, but the Court has defined it as a controversy appropriate for review by the court, in that it is definite and concrete and that touches upon the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., 199 Ill.2d 325, 335 (2002). A matter is justiciable if the rights and duties at issue (i) are established in common law or in equity or (ii) are created through legislation. Id. 3

9 2. The Illinois General Assembly created the authorization for the judicial enforcement of administrative-adjudication judgments under Division of the Illinois Municipal Code. The Illinois General Assembly created Division of the Illinois Municipal Code in That Division codifies the procedures for home-rule communities to operate an administrative adjudication system. See generally, 65 ILCS 5/ through 65 ILCS 5/ (West 2012). (a) The enforcement of ordinances is vital to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Ordinance enforcement is a key component in safeguarding the health, safety, and welfare of communities. While ordinance violations may not rise to the level of major criminal activity, they can severely cripple the quality of life for Illinois citizens. Small offenses beget increasing larger ones. This is known as the broken window theory. See, Julie Ann Sebastian, et al., Survey of Illinois Law: Administrative Review Law, 23 S.Ill.U.L.J. 803, 836 (1999)( Survey ). Minor disorders, such as public drinking, graffiti, and unkempt property, serve as the catalyst for crime and community decay. Addressing these minor disorders will lessen the opportunity for that crime and decay to gain a foothold. Id. The 4

10 enforcement of ordinances helps prevent small offenses from evolving into major crimes. (b) Administrative adjudication is the best venue for enforcing ordinances. These minor disorders are best addressed though administrative adjudication rather than through the courts. For an overburdened court system faced with drug, gang, and violent crime, it is easy for these quality of life cases to inadvertently fall through the cracks. Id. This is not a criticism of the courts; it is simply a matter of numbers. The thousands of quality of life cases would simply swamp the resources of the courts, which must, rightly, prioritize its efforts to address more serious criminal activity. See, id. (c) Administrative adjudication judgments were not enforceable because it required a separate court action. Administrative adjudication is nothing new; it has been a component of federal, state, and local government since the nation s founding. In some form, administrative adjudication has always existed in Illinois. See, James M. Reilly, Administrative Adjudication Offers First-Class Justice, 89 Ill.B.J. 147, 147 (2001). 5

11 Prior to Division 1-2.1, a municipality seeking to enforce a hearing officer s decision would have had to file a second action in the courts. This led to municipalities simply filing thousands of ordinanceenforcement cases in an already overburdened court system thus defeating the point of being an alternative to the courts. After all, the point of municipal administrative adjudication is to remove the small potato ordinance violations from an overburdened court system. The municipalities, the judiciary, and the General Assembly all realized that municipal administrative adjudication could not be a viable alternative to the courts unless the judgments of the hearing officers had some teeth. See, Survey at 835. (d) The General Assembly sought to address the lack of enforceability of administrative adjudication judgments by enacting Division By creating Division 1-2.1, the Illinois General Assembly improved the existing administrative-adjudication process in two ways: (i) it streamlined the process by allowing an administrative-adjudication system to operate under a uniform set of procedural rules; and (ii) it allowed for the enforcement of municipal judgments, which gave municipal administrative adjudication the teeth necessary to be a viable alternative to state court proceedings. See, id. 6

12 According to the sponsor of the legislation in the Senate, the main purpose of this legislation is to provide for the enforcement of administrative adjudication orders. See, 90 th General Assembly Senate Transcription Debate, March 19, 1997, page 114 (statement of Senator Obama)( The problem is, apparently, that there are no enforcement powers no enforcement mechanisms to give these administrative adjudication processes some teeth. And so, as a consequence, people are ending up not really using the administrative adjudication system that s already been set up. Instead, they continue to simply overburden the courts. And so, one of the concerns in terms of court watchers, as well as the Chief Judge in Cook County, is that they can t use them unless administrative adjudication process actually has some teeth ). (e) Division of the Municipal Code designates administrative adjudication orders as enforceable judgments. The General Assembly placed those necessary enforcement provisions the teeth into of the Municipal Code. That statutory Section contains a number of enforcement provisions: Subsection (a) states that all fines, sanctions, or costs imposed are a debt due and owing to the municipality and may be collected in accordance with applicable law. 7

13 Subsection (b) states that the findings, decision, and order of the hearing officer may be enforced in the same manner as a judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction. Subsection (c) allows a municipality to recover attorneys fees and other enforcement costs through the order of a court of competent jurisdiction or a hearing officer. Subsection (d) authorizes the municipality to record a lien against the property and enforce that lien in the same manner as a court of competent jurisdiction. Subsection (e) allows hearing officers to vacate default orders. See, 65 ILCS 5/ (West 2012). (f) State statute designates the courts as the proper venue for the enforcement of judgments. Section of the Municipal Code states that judgments from a municipal administrative adjudication: (i) are debts to the municipality that may be collected in accordance with applicable law; and (ii) may be enforced in the same manner as a judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction. 65 ILCS 5/ (West 2012). The only applicable laws for the enforcement of judgments are those through the courts under the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, in order for Section to have any effect, the judgments must be enforceable through the courts. Indeed, this has been the practice of courts since Division became effective in See, e.g., Circuit Court of Cook County, 8

14 General Order No. 1.2,2.3 ( The Municipal District in which the municipality is located hears actions filed by municipalities pursuant to 65 ILCS 5/ or 65 ILCS 5/ for the enforcement of judgments and judgments on the findings, decision and order, respectively. ). Section of the Municipal Code designates an administrative adjudication order as a judgment. Section of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the enforcement of a judgment upon its entry. 735 ILCS 5/ (West 2010)( The person in whose favor any judgment is entered, may have the judgment enforced by the proper officer of any county, in this State, against the lands and tenements, goods and chattels of the person against whom the judgment is entered, or against his or her body, when the same is authorized by law. ). The fundamental purpose for this provision is to provide for the general enforceability of judgments. See, Haugens v. Holmes, 314 Ill. App. 166, 169 (2 Dist. 1942). The Section then goes on to authorize judgments from other counties, which would be a similar process for administrative adjudication orders. 9

15 The applicable law for the collection of debts and the enforcement of orders includes: Citations to discover assets 735 ILCS 5/ (West 2012); Non-wage garnishment 735 ILCS 5/ (West 2012); Wage garnishment 735 ILCS 5/ (West 2012); Judgment liens 735 ILCS 5/ (West 2012); and Body-attachment orders 735 ILCS 5/ (West 2012). Under the Code of Civil Procedure, all of these actions are completed through the courts. Conversely, no statute empowers administrativeadjudication courts, municipal hearing officers, or other municipal officials to perform these functions. The Code of Civil procedure, itself, anticipates the judicial enforcement of administrative adjudications of ordinance violations. For instance, certain restrictions on the procedures in a citation to discover assets specifically do not apply to the enforcement of any order or judgment resulting from an adjudication of a municipal ordinance violation from an administrative adjudication of such an ordinance violation. 735 ILCS 5/ (West 2012)(emphasis added). Similarly, specific limitations on the use of body-attachment orders do not apply to the enforcement of any order or judgment resulting from an adjudication 10

16 of a municipal ordinance violation from an administrative adjudication of such an ordinance violation. 735 ILCS 5/ (West 2012)(emphasis added). These provisions were specifically included because the General Assembly recognized that administrative adjudication judgments are enforced through these very statutes. See, 97 th General Assembly Senate Transcription Debate, May 22, 2012, page (statement of Senator Haine); 97 th General Assembly House of Representatives Transcription Debate, May 30, 2012, page 21 (statement of Representative Williams). The General Assembly clearly intended for municipal adjudication judgments to be enforced; it explicitly stated that the judgments are enforceable. The Code of Civil Procedure provides for the enforcement mechanisms. Conversely, no other statute sets forth the enforcement mechanisms for municipal adjudication judgments. Therefore, this Court should hold that municipal adjudication judgments are enforced by the courts through the Code of Civil Procedure. 11

17 B. The Trial Court improperly interpreted the statutes. The trial court made a fundamental error when it interpreted the statute in this case. When interpreting a statute, the courts should seek to avoid an interpretation that nullifies the statute. Upon finding an ambiguity in the statute, the Circuit Court did not attempt resolve that ambiguity; it opted, instead, to nullify the statute. Accordingly, this Court should reverse the Circuit Court s decision. The duty of the court, when construing a statute, is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Gruszeczka v. Illinois Workers Compensation Com n, 2013 IL , 12. The court must interpret the statute in a manner that is consistent with the purpose and intent of the legislature. People v. Almore, 241 Ill.2d 387, 396 (2011). It is an error for the court to consider a statutory provision in isolation without looking at the broader picture. Lansing v. Southwest Airlines Co., 2012 IL App (1 st ) , 30 ( A court s interpretation of a statute is guided not just be a single sentence or clause, but by the language of the whole law and the policy behind it. ). When faced with unclear language, it is important for the court to examine the purpose and the policy behind the statute. Bowne of Chicago, Inc. v. Human Rights 12

18 Com n, 301 Ill. App.3d 116, 121 (4 Dist. 1998)( The policies underlying a statute are often regarded as a valuable source of legislative intent. Examination of the reason and necessity for the law, the evils that the legislature sought to remedy and the purposes intended to be accomplished is particularly important in cases such as this one, where the statutory language is not clear. )(citations omitted). Whenever possible, courts must construe statutes so that no part is rendered a nullity. Eads v. Heritage Enterprises, Inc., 204 Ill.2d 92, 105 (2003). In this case, the Circuit Court made no attempt to ascertain the intent of the legislature or to give it any effect. The Circuit Court found that Section of the Municipal Code was unclear concerning the procedure that the courts could take to enroll the enforcement of an administrative order. The Circuit Court then found that the administrative adjudication order is not a judgment and cannot be enforced as a judgment in the Circuit Court. In the defense of the Circuit Court, the enforcement provisions of the administrative-adjudication statute were not drafted as precise as they 13

19 might have been. The provision that municipal orders may be enforced in the same manner as a judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction is written in the passive voice and hides the subject of the sentence. It does not explicitly state who does the enforcing. While the statute may arguably be ambiguous, that ambiguity is not fatal to the statute. It is possible for the courts to resolve any ambiguity to effectuate the intent of the legislature. The Court can effectuate the intent of the legislature by examining: The policy behind administrative adjudication; The consequences of having unenforceable municipal judgments; The legislative history of the administrative-adjudication statute; The procedures that are statutorily available for enforcement under the Code of Civil Procedure; The lack of enforcement procedures under any other statute; The history of courts across Illinois that have been enforcing municipal-adjudication judgments since the statute became effective in All of these factors indicate that the General Assembly intended the judicial enforcement of municipal adjudication judgments. The Circuit Court did not effectuate this intent. Instead, it frustrated the intent of the legislature by leaving the statute in an unenforceable limbo. This Court should reverse that decision. 14

20 III. Conclusion For the reasons set forth in this brief, the Illinois Municipal League requests this Court to reverse the decision of the Circuit Court. Respectfully submitted, The Illinois Municipal League One of its Attorneys Brian Day Roger Huebner Illinois Municipal League 500 East Capitol Avenue Springfield, Illinois (217)

21 No IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOR THE SECOND DISTRICT VILLAGE OF LAKE IN THE HILLS, an Illinois municipal corporation, On Appeal from the Circuit Court of McHenry County, Illinois v. Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 12 SC 2559 DENNIS NIKLAUS, Defendant-Appellee Honorable John D. Bolger, Judge Presiding. Certificate of Compliance I certify that this brief conforms to the requirements of Rules 341(a) and (b). The length of this brief, excluding the appendix pages containing the Rule 341(d) cover, the Rule 341(h)(1) statement of points and authorities, the Rule 341(c) certificate of compliance, the certificate of service, and those matters to be appended to the brief under Rule 342(a), is 15 pages. BRIAN DAY Lead Staff Attorney Illinois Municipal League 16