City of Va. v. Mitchell
| Decision Date | 20 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-14-0252,4-14-0252 |
| Citation | 2015 IL App (4th) 140252 -U |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
| Parties | THE CITY OF VIRGINIA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TERRY D. MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant. |
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from Circuit Court of Cass County
Honorable Bob G. Hardwick, Judge Presiding.
¶ 1 Held: The trial court's judgment denying defendant's request for sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 (eff. July 1, 2013) is affirmed as the court did not abuse its discretion. Further, the City's request for sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375(b) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994) is denied.
¶ 2 In March 2011, plaintiff, the City of Virginia, Illinois (City), filed a five-count complaint against defendant, Terry D. Mitchell, alleging violations of the City Code of Virginia (City Code) for failure to register a vacant building and maintaining a nuisance relating to a vacant property located at 220 East Beardstown Street, Virginia, Illinois (the property). On June 20, 2012, the trial court found defendant guilty of the Code violations and ordered him to pay, inter alia, $3,750 in fines. On July 9, 2012, defendant appealed, arguing he was not proved to be the owner of the property during the time period alleged in the City's complaint. City of Virginiav. Mitchell, 2013 IL App (4th) 120629, ¶ 2, 991 N.E.2d 936.
¶ 3 On July 27, 2012, the City filed a second complaint against defendant, alleging defendant was liable for failure to register a vacant building, the property, in violation of the City Code for the period of June 20, 2012, to July 27, 2012. On December 11, 2012, the trial court found in favor of the City but deferred setting the fine owed until the appellate court reached its decision on the appeal from the June 2012 order. On June 28, 2013, this court reversed, finding the City "failed to establish defendant owned, occupied, or possessed the property during the period alleged in the complaint." Id. ¶ 37, 991 N.E.2d 936. On December 10, 2013, defendant filed an amended motion to reconsider the December 11, 2012, order and an amended motion for sanctions and attorney fees under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 (eff. July 1, 2013). On March 19, 2014, the court vacated its December 11, 2012, order but denied defendant's motion for sanctions and attorney fees. Defendant appealed.
¶ 4 On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for sanctions and attorney fees under Rule 137 because (1) the City filed its complaint with an intent merely to harass defendant, to increase his litigation costs, and to delay proceedings; (2) the court relied on invalid reasons in denying his motion; (3) the court's reasoning did not follow logically from the circumstances of the case; and (4) no reasonable person would agree with the court's decision to deny defendant's motion for sanctions and attorney fees. The City requests sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375(b) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994), asserting defendant's appeal is frivolous. We affirm the trial court's denial of defendant's amended motion for sanctions and attorney fees. Further, we deny the City's request for sanctions.
¶ 6 In March 2011, the City filed a five-count complaint against defendant, alleging he was liable for failure to register a vacant building, the property, and maintaining a nuisance in violation of the City Code. On June 20, 2012, the trial court found defendant guilty of the ordinance violations and ordered him to pay $3,750 in fines for the violations, $750 in attorney fees, and the costs of suit. On July 9, 2012, defendant appealed, arguing he was not proved to be the owner of the property during the time period alleged in the City's complaint. City of Virginia v. Mitchell, 2013 IL App (4th) 120629, ¶ 2, 991 N.E.2d 936.
¶ 7 On July 27, 2012, the City filed a 37-count complaint against defendant, alleging he was liable for failure to register the property, in violation of the City Code for the period of June 20, 2012, to July 27, 2012. On August 13, 2012, defendant was timely served with a summons and a copy of the complaint. The summons notified defendant he was required to appear and if he failed to do so, a warrant may be issued for his arrest. On August 24, 2012, defendant filed a motion to dismiss or stay and to conduct proceedings by telephone or Internet conference. Defendant's motion (1) alleged deficiencies in the City's complaint, including the failure to include a prayer for a penalty range requested; (2) highlighted the distance between Virginia, Illinois, and where defendant and his attorney resided, Rochelle, Illinois; and (3) indicated if defendant was successful in proving he is not the owner of the property on appeal, the City's 37-count complaint would be moot. On September 25, 2012, the trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss; however, it also granted the City leave to file an amended complaint instanter, which was served upon defendant in open court. The amended complaint included a prayer for relief, asking the court to impose a fine against defendant in the amount of up to $750 per count, for a total of up to $27,750 for the 37 counts of failing to register theproperty for the period from June 20, 2012, to July 27, 2012. Further, the court denied defendant's motion to stay proceedings and his motion to conduct proceedings by telephone or Internet conference.
¶ 8 On December 11, 2012, a trial was held on the City's amended complaint. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the City, concluding, based on its previous ruling defendant was the owner of the property, the City had met its burden on all 37 counts. The court withheld from setting the fine owed until the appellate court reached its decision on the appeal from the first case. After several continuances, a case-management conference was set for 11:30 a.m. on August 27, 2013.
¶ 9 On June 28, 2013, this court issued an opinion in the first case reversing the trial court's judgment, concluding the City failed to establish defendant owned, occupied, or possessed the property during the period alleged in the complaint. Mitchell, 2013 IL App (4th) 120629, ¶ 37, 991 N.E.2d 936. On August 26, 2013, the City filed a timely petition for leave to appeal to the supreme court. The City did not notify defendant of the petition. On that same date, defendant filed a motion to reconsider the December 11, 2012, order and a motion for sanctions and attorney fees pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 (eff. July 1, 2013).
¶ 10 On August 27, 2013, around 9:20 a.m., the City's attorney appeared before the trial court on an unrelated matter. At this time, the court asked the City's attorney about the scheduled 11:30 a.m. hearing with defendant. The City's attorney indicated a petition for leave to appeal the decision of the appellate court had been filed. The court asked the City's attorney, "as a matter of courtesy," to contact defendant's attorney and notify her not to come to the scheduled conference. The City's attorney sent defendant's attorney an e-mail at 10:30 a.m.,notifying her of the petition for leave to appeal. As it would take three hours to arrive in Virginia from Rochelle, defendant and his attorney had already left by the time the City's attorney sent the e-mail. Defendant's attorney did not read the e-mail prior to the conference. Defendant and his attorney arrived at the scheduled 11:30 a.m. conference. The City was not present. Defendant's motion to reconsider and motion for sanctions was set for a telephone status conference on a later date. Thereafter, the matter was continued until a decision was made by the supreme court to grant or deny the City's petition. On November 27, 2013, the supreme court denied the City's petition for leave to appeal.
¶ 11 On December 10, 2013, defendant filed an amended motion to reconsider the December 11, 2012, order and an amended motion for sanctions and attorney fees. As to his amended motion for sanctions and attorney fees, defendant alleged the City filed its complaint with (1) the knowledge that it was not well grounded in fact and (2) the improper purpose of harassing defendant and increasing his litigation costs. (On appeal, defendant does not argue the complaint was not well grounded in fact.) Defendant presented several instances of conduct that he argued demonstrated the complaint was filed for an improper purpose, including (1) the City's attorney stated to defendant he would "ruin" him through the litigation process; (2) the City filed the complaint regardless of the fact a reversal of the case on appeal would render the present case moot, thereby potentially increasing litigation costs; (3) the conduct of the City's attorney on August 27, 2013; (4) the City threatened arrest in the summons; and (5) the City's repeated demands to collect fees outside the litigation process.
¶ 12 On March 19, 2014, the trial court heard argument on defendant's motions. Based on the appellate court's ruling, the court vacated its December 11, 2012, order. As to defendant'smotion for sanctions and attorney fees, the court found (1) the City's amended complaint to be well grounded in fact and its purpose was not to harass defendant; (2) when weighing the credibility of the witnesses and their testimony, allegations regarding the City's attorney telling defendant he would "ruin" him were discredited as defendant was a convicted felon; (3) the City's decision to prosecute the complaint during the pendency of the appeal was appropriate as the court denied defendant's motion to stay proceedings; (4) although the failure of the City to contact defendant on August 26, 2013, to notify him of the petition for leave to appeal was less...
To continue reading
Request your trial