Goral v. Kulys

• Decision Date: 30 October 2014
• Docket Number: No. 1–13–3236.,1–13–3236.
• Citation: 21 N.E.3d 64
• Parties: Anna GORAL, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Joseph KULYS, Defendant–Appellee (John Does 1 through 5, Defendants.)
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

21 N.E.3d 64

Anna GORAL, Plaintiff–Appellant

v.Joseph KULYS, Defendant–Appellee (John Does 1 through 5, Defendants.)

No. 1–13–3236.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division.

Oct. 30, 2014.

James J. Macchitelli, of Law Office of James Macchitelli, of Schaumburg, for appellant.

Christopher Koczwara, of Law Office of Christopher Koczwara, PC, of Chicago, for appellee.

OPINION

Justice EPSTEIN

delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 This appeal addresses whether the Illinois Citizen Participation Act (the Act) (735 ILCS 110/1 et seq.

(West 2010)) bars a defamation suit filed by a former candidate for public office against a blogger who wrote an article questioning whether the candidate was qualified to run for office. Plaintiff Anna Goral, the former candidate, appeals from the trial court's order granting defendant Joseph Kulys's¹ motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2–619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 735 ILCS 5/2–619(a)(9) (West 2010). We affirm the trial court's dismissal, as defendant's speech was protected by the Act and plaintiff's suit was designed to chill defendant's exercise of that protected activity.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Plaintiff was a candidate for alderman in the 23rd Ward in Chicago. On February 7, 2011, defendant posted the following article, entitled, “Anna and Jack Goral Live Where?” on his blog:

“People who run for public office should know that they are running for a position of public trust.

Anna Goral, a candidate for 23rd Ward alderman, says she knows that. On her website, she writes, ‘I believe holding an elected position is a public trust.’

OK so far.

Anna says she lives in the 23rd Ward, at 6500 W. Archer; as does her husband, Jack Goral.

But wait. Is that accurate?

Check the online records of the Cook County Treasurer and the Cook County Recorder of Deeds; specifically, look up the residential property at 7 Cinnamon Creek Drive, in southwest suburban Palos Hills.

Those county records identify Anna Goral as the owner, and that she purchased it in 2009, the last year records are available.

As many of us know, the homeowner's exemption can save you a lot of money on your taxes. For the Cinnamon Creek Drive property, Anna Goral reduced her taxes by $1,496.39 last year when she received the homeowner's exemption according to records posted on the website of the Cook County Assessor.

Here's where it gets interesting.

State law requires that owners live in the property for which they are seeking the ‘homeowner exemption’ tax break. Violation of the law governing homeowner exemptions is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and a maximum fine of $2,500.

So here's what it boils down to: either Anna Goral lives in the city—at 6500 W. Archer, as she stated in writing to the Chicago Board of Elections (her notarized nominating petitions)—or she lives in Palos Hills, as the Cook County government websites appear to indicate.

If she lives in Palos Hills, she is not qualified to run for alderman of Chicago's 23rd Ward. If she lives in Chicago, then she may be in violation of state law.

Which is it?

The appropriate authorities will sort this out. I have shared the information with the Cook County Assessor's Office, as well as the Cook County State's Attorney's Office. I expect they will investigate and render a decision.

The Cook County Assessor's Office, which records tax data on approximately 1.5 million pieces of property, has traditionally relied on tips from citizens and journalists about alleged abuses of the homeowner exemption.

Additionally, I note that the Cook County government's online records appear to indicate that Anna Goral's husband, Jack Goral, claims homeowner exemptions on two residences, which if true is also a violation of state law. The residences are 8828 Concord Lane, in southwest suburban Justice, and 6500 W. Archer in the city. On the property in Justice, Jack received a tax break of $961.75 last year. On the Archer Avenue property, he got a tax break of $277.61.

I await word back from county authorities and will share it when I receive it.” (Emphases in original.)

Plaintiff lost the election on February 22, 2011.

¶ 4 On April 14, 2011, defendant posted another article entitled, “Where is [sic ] Anna and Jack ... an Assessor's update.” The article restated the assertions in defendant's February 7, 2011 article and added the following:

“Here's the update : I spoke on the phone with Kelley Quinn of the Cook County Assessor's Office, who told me that the Goral-owned residences have been places [sic ] in the ‘Denied ’ file—meaning that the Goral's [sic ] will no longer automatically receive their homeowners tax breaks. If they want to straighten things out, they will have to appear in person with state issued identification to prove where they actually live.

Quinn said that the Assessor's Office will mail a letter to the Gorals, informing them of the action.

‘There are people out there who try to screw the system,’ Quinn told me. ‘Sometimes, it's intentional. Sometimes not.’ Quinn added that people who get homeowner tax breaks that shouldn't are required to pay the money back. As an example, she mentioned a person who recently walked in and cut a check for $13,000 to settle up.

As many such cases do, the Goral case is doubtless going to the Cook County State's Attorney's Office for assessment. When I hear from them, I will share what I learn.” (Emphases in original.)

¶ 5 On May 26, 2011, plaintiff filed suit in the circuit court of Cook County, alleging that defendant's articles defamed her.

Plaintiff alleged that the articles falsely “impute[d] criminal conduct that [defendant] allege[d] was committed by Plaintiff for a financial gain.” Plaintiff asserted that she bought the house in Palos Hills in 2009 as an investment property and obtained a credit to pay the real estate taxes from the sellers. According to plaintiff's complaint, “the homeowner's exemption used was the seller's homeowner's exemption,” and “[s]ubsequent payments will be the Plaintiff's real estate tax payments and will not be reduced by a homeowner's exemption.” Plaintiff claimed that defendant published the articles “with the sole intent to confuse members of the public and to cause members of the public to not vote for Plaintiff in the aldermanic election as Plaintiff was labeled as untrustworthy and a liar.” Plaintiff also alleged that defendant published the articles with actual malice, knowing that they were false.

¶ 6 Plaintiff claimed that defendant's articles damaged her real estate business and her political reputation. Plaintiff asked the court to award compensatory damages in “an amount that exceeds $50,000,” as well as punitive damages. Plaintiff also requested that the court enjoin defendant from continuing to post the articles on his website, “[f]orbid future unlawful, false, or misleading statements, publications or utterances by Defendant [ ] against Plaintiff,” and order defendant to “[m]ake actual written retractions and inform the members of th[e] public that Plaintiff's actions which were complained about by Defendant[ ] were not unlawful acts and were rather lawful, common and ordinary acts.”

¶ 7 On July 11, 2011, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to section 2–615 of the Code of Civil Procedure

(735 ILCS 5/2–615 (West 2010) ). On November 15, 2011, the trial court denied defendant's section 2–615 motion to dismiss.

¶ 8 On November 28, 2011, plaintiff filed a statement of candidacy with the State Board of Elections declaring her candidacy for state representative in the 23rd legislative district. Plaintiff listed her address as “6500 W. Archer Ave.” in Chicago. The statement of candidacy indicated that the primary election was scheduled to take place on March 20, 2012.

¶ 9 On September 13, 2012, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to section 2–619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure

(735 ILCS 5/2–619(a)(9) (West 2010)), asserting that the Act barred plaintiff's suit. Defendant asserted that plaintiff's suit was a meritless, retaliatory suit designed to chill defendant's exercise of his rights to free speech and political participation. Defendant attached printouts from the Cook County assessor's office's website that indicated that the homes in Chicago and in Palos Hills had received homeowner's exemptions in 2009. Defendant also attached printouts from the Cook County treasurer's website that listed the 2009 tax year bills for the Chicago and Palos Hills properties. For the Palos Hills property, the treasurer listed, “ANN GORAL, 6500 WARCHER, CHICAGO, IL” under the heading, “Mailing Information,” and indicated that the property had received a homeowner's exemption. The same information was listed for the Chicago property.

¶ 10 Plaintiff filed a response to defendant's motion to dismiss, but it is not included in the record on appeal. In defendant's reply to plaintiff's response, he included plaintiff's statement of candidacy for the state representative election. Defendant also attached plaintiff's answers to his first set of interrogatories to his reply. In her answers, plaintiff asserted that she received 33.5% of the vote (5,510 votes) in the aldermanic election and her opponent, Michael Zalewski, received 52.64% of the vote (8,658 votes). Plaintiff noted that defendant's website received 9,154 views, which she asserted “caused Alderman Zalewski to receive a couple of thousand additional votes” and “caused Plaintiff to lose the Aldermanic election.” Plaintiff stated that, if she received 420 more votes, she would have been able to participate in a runoff election with Zalewski. In commenting on how defendant's statements lowered her reputation in the eyes of the community, plaintiff stated that she “already lost an aldermanic election and may lose the current election as a result of Defendant's false publications.” Plaintiff said that she sought “$110,000 reimbursement for her expenses in...