Feen v. Ray

• Citation: 93 Ill.Dec. 794,487 N.E.2d 619,109 Ill.2d 339
• Decision Date: 20 December 1985
• Docket Number: No. 61430,61430
• Parties: , 93 Ill.Dec. 794, 29 Ed. Law Rep. 695 Stuart FEEN, Appellee, v. Fred RAY et al. (Zion State Bank & Trust Company, Appellant).
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

Page 619

487 N.E.2d 619

109 Ill.2d 339, 93 Ill.Dec. 794, 29

Ed. Law Rep. 695

Stuart FEEN, Appellee, v. Fred RAY et al. (Zion State Bank & Trust Company, Appellant).

No. 61430.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 20, 1985.

Donald C. Lundquist, Lundquist & Mitchell, Zion, Charles R. McKirdy, Pope, Ballard, Shepard & Fowle, Ltd., Chicago, for appellant.

Daniel K. Sinclair, Barbara B. Sinclair, Sinclair & Sinclair, Ltd., Zion, for appellee.

MILLER, Justice:

Stuart Feen, a taxpayer, filed a complaint on behalf of Zion-Benton Township High School District 126, alleging that Fred Ray and Zion State Bank and Trust Company fraudulently deprived the district of interest on district funds. Ray, a former member of the board of education of School District No. 126, was also an officer of Zion State Bank, in which most of the district's funds were kept. Subsequent to the dismissal of plaintiff taxpayer's original complaint and three amended complaints, plaintiff stipulated to the dismissal of the defendant school district from the lawsuit. Plaintiff then filed his fourth amended complaint, omitting the school district as a defendant. Defendants Fred Ray and Zion State Bank then moved to dismiss the fourth amended complaint, contending that the school district is an indispensable party, without which the case cannot proceed.

The circuit court of Lake County denied defendants' motion to dismiss. The circuit court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308 (87 Ill.2d R. 308), certified for interlocutory appeal the question of whether the school district was an indispensable party in this taxpayer's derivative suit. The appellate court denied the defendants' application for leave to appeal the issue. Defendant Zion State Bank then filed a petition for leave to appeal to this court. We allowed the petition, pursuant to Rule 302(b) (94 Ill.2d R. 302(b)).

Plaintiff Feen initiated this action by filing suit as a class action on behalf of himself, as a taxpayer of the district, and all other persons similarly situated. Named as defendants in the original suit were Fred Ray, Zion State Bank and Trust Company, School District No. 126, and the Lake County regional superintendent of schools. Plaintiff contended that defendant Ray had violated his fiduciary duty to the school district during his tenure as treasurer of the district from July 1973 through June 1981. Plaintiff alleged that Ray, as district treasurer, had invested most of the district's funds into accounts in the Zion State Bank bearing little or no interest. Ray had been an officer of and a stockholder in Zion State Bank during the same period in which he served as treasurer of the school district. Plaintiff sought to recover, on behalf of the school district, interest lost by the district as a result of Ray's actions.

Plaintiff's first complaint was stricken as to the defendant regional superintendent of schools. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, naming Fred Ray, Zion State Bank, and School District No. 126 as defendants. The amended complaint was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiff's second amended complaint was also dismissed as defective. Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint; defendants Ray and Zion State Bank responded by filing motions to dismiss, based upon plaintiff's failure to allege in the complaint that he had served upon the district a demand that the district bring suit against Ray. While defendants' motions were pending, plaintiff stipulated to an order dismissing School District No. 126 from the lawsuit, with prejudice to further action. Neither Fred Ray nor Zion State Bank objected to the district's dismissal. The circuit court subsequently granted the motions of defendants Ray and Zion State Bank to dismiss plaintiff's third amended complaint. The court again allowed plaintiff leave to replead, but ruled that the plaintiff's fourth amended complaint would be his final opportunity to adequately state a cause of action.

Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint named Fred Ray and Zion State Bank as defendants. Zion State Bank filed a motion to dismiss this complaint, alleging that School District No. 126 was an indispensable party, the absence of which rendered plaintiff's complaint fatally defective. Fred Ray adopted this motion.

The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss. After the appellate court denied defendants' interlocutory appeal, we accepted Zion State Bank's petition for leave to appeal.

Taxpayers, such as plaintiff, possess an equitable right to bring suit to protect their interest in public funds. (People v. Holten (1919), 287 Ill. 225, 230-31, 122 N.E. 540.) It is a general rule of equity that all persons must be made parties to the suit who are legally or beneficially interested in the subject matter of the litigation, and who will be affected by the judgment, so that the court may dispose of the entire controversy. (Oglesby v. Springfield Marine Bank (1944), 385 Ill. 414, 422-23, 52 N.E.2d 1000; Riley v. Webb (1916), 272 Ill. 537, 538-39, 112 N.E. 340.) It is generally accepted that, under fundamental principles of due process, a court is without jurisdiction to enter an order or judgment which affects a right or interest of someone not before the court. Central National Bank v. Fleetwood Realty Corp. (1982), 110 Ill.App.3d 169, 182, 65 Ill.Dec 730, 441 N.E.2d 1244; Lain v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. (1979), 79 Ill.App.3d 264, 269, 34 Ill.Dec. 603, 398 N.E.2d 278.

The interests of School District No. 126 are not merely affected by the present litigation, but rather provide the entire basis for the lawsuit. The plaintiff taxpayer alleges that defendants harmed the school district as an entity, and he seeks to recover solely on behalf of the district. Thus, plaintiff brings this action derivatively. He does not claim direct injury to himself. Where a taxpayer sets judicial machinery in motion in a derivative action, the direct injury to be remedied is not personal to the taxpayer. Rather, the right of action is that of the governmental entity. (See Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District v. Committee on Water Pollution (1951), 260 Wis. 229, 50 N.W.2d 424.) The plaintiff taxpayer has no individual rights which rise above those of the school district in this matter. See City of New Orleans v. New Orleans Water Works Co. (1891), 142 U.S. 79, 93, 12 S.Ct. 142, 147, 35 L.Ed. 943, 948; Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District v. Committee on Water Pollution (1951), 260 Wis. 229, 248-49, 50 N.W.2d 424, 434-35.

In Metropolitan Sanitary District ex rel. O'Keeffe v. Ingram Corp. (1981), 85 Ill.2d 458, 55 Ill.Dec. 535, 426 N.E.2d 860, this court recognized the analogy between corporate shareholder and taxpayer derivative suits. The actions are similar because each derivative suit is based upon two causes of action: one lies against corporate directors or public officials for failing to sue, and the other against the alleged wrongdoers, based upon the cause of action belonging to the corporation or governmental body. Corporations or governmental entities are necessary parties in derivative actions, the court explained, because recovery runs in favor of them. (85 Ill.2d 458, 472, 55 Ill.Dec. 535, 426 N.E.2d 860.) See, e.g., Coyle v. Richter (1931), 203 Wis. 590, 592, 234 N.W. 906, 907 (a municipality must be a party where a taxpayer seeks to recover money or property on its behalf); see also Price v. Gurney (1945), 324 U.S. 100, 65 S.Ct. 513, 89 L.Ed. 776 (corporations indispensable); Stack v. Borelli (1949), 3 N.J.Super. 546, 66 A.2d 904 (municipality indispensable); Schulz v. Kissling (1938), 228 Wis. 282, 280 N.W. 388 (town indispensable).

School District No. 126 does not lose its status as a necessary party merely because the district sought its own dismissal from plaintiff's derivative action. It is a requirement of all taxpayer derivative suits that the governmental entity refused taxpayers' requests to enforce on its own the entity's cause of action. (City of Chicago ex rel. Konstantelos v. Duncan Traffic Equipment Co. (1983), 95 Ill.2d 344, 355, 69 Ill.Dec. 354, 447 N.E.2d 789.) The school district's desire not to participate in the present action is not unlike other taxpayer derivative suits where governmental entities refuse in the first instance to sue in their own behalf.

The indispensable-party rule reflects a long-standing policy against affecting the rights and interests of absent parties who do not have an opportunity to protect their interests. (See Shields v. Barrow (1854), 58 U.S. (17 How.) 130, 15 L.Ed. 158.) Plaintiff suggests that School District No. 126 was aware that its interests were the subject of litigation, yet voluntarily excised itself from the case. Therefore, plaintiff maintains, the school district is not an indispensably necessary party to the present suit, because the policy underlying the indispensable-party rule has not been contravened.

In support of his position, plaintiff cites Lerner v. Zipperman (1982), 104 Ill.App.3d 1098, 60 Ill.Dec. 834, 433 N.E.2d 1072. In Lerner, defendant Zipperman entered into an agreement to sell his insurance agency to Peters for the sum of $75,000. Several persons agreed with Peters to contribute funds to the venture, in exchange for part ownership of the business. These persons paid $52,500 to Zipperman. Apparently, Peters contributed no funds of his own. Ownership of the agency was not conveyed to Peters. The contributors demanded that Zipperman return their money. These demands went unheeded, and plaintiffs sued Zipperman. The trial court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs, but the appellate court reversed, ruling that Peters was an indispensable party who must be joined in the suit. (Lerner v. Zipperman (1979), 69 Ill.App.3d 620, 26 Ill.Dec. 116, 387 N.E.2d 946.) The plaintiffs amended their complaint, adding Peters as a defendant. Peters disavowed any pecuniary interest in plaintiff's suit against...