Lee v. Pucinski
| Decision Date | 26 October 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-93-0472,1-93-0472 |
| Citation | 642 N.E.2d 769,267 Ill.App.3d 489,204 Ill.Dec. 868 |
| Parties | , 204 Ill.Dec. 868 Dannie LEE and Scott Michael Alexander, P.C., an Illinois Corporation, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Aurelia PUCINSKI, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, and Edward J. Rosewell, Treasurer of the County of Cook, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Lionel I. Brazen, Chicago (Paul R. Jenen, of counsel), for appellants.
Jack O'Malley, Chicago (Karen Covy, Patricia M. Moser, Dominique Martin, of counsel), for appellees.
Plaintiffs, Dannie Lee (Lee) and Scott Michael Alexander, P.C. (Alexander), filed a class action against defendants, Aurelia Pucinski, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County (Clerk), and Edward Rosewell, Treasurer of Cook County (Treasurer), seeking (1) a declaration that section 27.2a(k)(5) of the Clerks of Courts Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 25, par. 27.2a(k)(5) (now 705 ILCS 105/27.2a(k)(5) (West 1992))) is unconstitutional; and (2) recovery of the fees paid under the statute. Plaintiff Lee also filed a motion for temporary restraining order to segregate the fees paid and to create a special protest fund. The trial court denied plaintiff's motion, then dismissed the amended complaint on the basis of § 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 110, par. 2-615 (now 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 1992))). On appeal, plaintiffs assert that (1) their amended complaint states a cause of action that section 27.2a(k)(5) is unconstitutional; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff Lee's motion for a temporary restraining order and to create a special protest fund. We affirm for the reasons that follow.
The following are the facts as stated in the amended complaint, which are taken as true in a motion to dismiss. Section 27.2a(k)(5) of the Clerks of Courts Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 25, par. 27.2a(k)(5) (now 705 ILCS 105/27.2a(k)(5) (West 1992))) provides that the fee to reproduce any document in the clerk's file is $2 for the first page, 50 cents per page for the next 19 pages, and 25 cents per page for the remaining pages. Plaintiffs allege that the statute (1) was enacted without regard to the business operation of the courts or the Clerk's office; (2) is a mechanism for raising general revenue; (3) is substantially higher than the marketplace rate of 10 cents for reproductions; and (4) is not for the legitimate purpose of operating, maintaining, and increasing the court's efficiency.
On January 1, 1992, the clerk's office began to collect the increased fees for reproduction of all documents. On February 25, 1992, plaintiff Lee asked a deputy clerk to reproduce two one-page orders from his divorce case so that his attorney could prepare a petition to terminate child support payments because his youngest child had attained the age of majority. After the deputy clerk refused to reproduce the documents without the $4 reproduction fee, Lee paid the $4.
On March 3, 1992, plaintiff Lee filed his complaint, seeking a declaration that section 27.2a(k)(5) is unconstitutional, temporary and permanent injunctions, the establishment of a special protest fund, an accounting, and the certification of a class action suit. On March 25, 1992, Lee filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin the clerk from transferring to the treasurer any reproduction fees collected and to require the clerk to pay the fees into a protest fund. The trial court denied the TRO motion.
On August 25, 1992, plaintiff Alexander tried to obtain a copy of a court document in order to prepare a motion. An agent for plaintiff Alexander asked a deputy clerk to reproduce the document. After the deputy clerk demanded that he pay $2 for photocopying the document, the agent paid the $2 under protest. On October 8, 1992, plaintiff Alexander joined Lee in filing an amended class action complaint.
On November 5, 1992, defendants filed a section 2-615 motion to dismiss the amended complaint. After a hearing, the trial court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. The trial court found that the complaint does not present any facts from which there can be a conclusion that the clerk has an express or implied duty to provide reproduction services.
Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of section 27.2a(k)(5) of the Clerks of Courts Act on the grounds that it (1) violates article I, section 12 of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const.1970, art. I, Sec. 12) by impermissibly interfering with the free access to justice; and (2) violates the due process clauses of the Federal and Illinois Constitutions. U.S. Const., amend. XIV, § 1; 1970 Ill. Const., art. I, § 2.
All legislative enactments carry a strong presumption of constitutionality and all doubts must be resolved in favor of their validity. (People v. Esposito (1988), 121 Ill.2d 491, 497, 118 Ill.Dec. 396, 521 N.E.2d 873.) The presumption can be overcome only by a clear showing that the statute is arbitrary and unsupportable by any set of facts. (Mlade v. Finley (1983), 112 Ill.App.3d 914, 919, 68 Ill.Dec. 387, 445 N.E.2d 1240.) A complaint challenging the constitutionality of a statute must allege specific facts that rebut the presumption of constitutionality. Mlade, 112 Ill.App.3d at 921, 68 Ill.Dec. 387, 445 N.E.2d 1240.
Plaintiffs assert that section 27.2a(k)(5) violates the Illinois Constitution's free access to justice clause because the legislature breached the clerk's duty to reproduce court documents. The free access to justice clause states:
Ill. Const.1970, Art. 1, § 12.
Plaintiffs argue that the public policy providing free access to the courts and court records is codified in statutes that place a duty on the clerk to provide copies of pleadings and orders to the public. Specifically, plaintiffs cite sections 13, 16, and 27.2a(k)(5) of the Clerks of Courts Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 25, pars. 13, 16, 27.2a(k)(5) (now 705 ILCS 105/13, 105/16, 105/27.2a(k)(5) (West 1992))); section 13 of the Local Records Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 116, par. 43.113 (now 50 ILCS 205/13 (West 1992))); and Supreme Court Rule 104(d) (134 Ill.2d R. 104(d)). Plaintiffs contend that if the clerk is required to collect a specific sum of money for a specific service, it is implicit that the clerk is under a duty to furnish such service at a reasonable cost.
Section 13 of the Clerks of Courts Act provides in pertinent part:
"The clerks shall attend the sessions of their respective courts, preserve all the files and papers thereof, make, keep and preserve complete records of all the proceedings and determinations thereof." Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 25, par. 13 (now 705 ILCS 105/13 (West 1992)).
Section 16(6) of the Clerks of Courts Act states in pertinent part:
"All records, dockets and books required by law to be kept by such clerks shall be deemed public records, and shall at all times be open to inspection without fee or reward, and all persons shall have free access for inspection and examination to such records, docket and books, and also to all papers on file in the different clerks' offices and shall have the right to take memoranda and abstracts thereto." Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 25, par. 16(6) (now 705 ILCS 105/16.6 (West 1992)).
Section 13 of the Local Records Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 116, par. 43.101 et seq. (now 50 ILCS 205/1 et seq. (West 1992))) states in pertinent part:
Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 116, par. 43.113 (now 50 ILCS 205/13 (West 1992)).
Supreme Court Rule 104(d) provides that parties who do not receive copies of a lawsuit's required pleadings or other papers "may obtain a copy from the clerk and the court shall order the offending party to reimburse the aggrieved party for the expense." 134 Ill.2d R. 104(d).
Section 27.2a of the Clerks of Courts Act provides in pertinent part:
"The fees of the clerks of the circuit court in all counties having a population of 3,000,000 or more inhabitants * * * shall be as follows:
* * * * * *
(k) Certification, Authentication, and Reproduction.
* * * * * *
(5) For reproduction of any document contained in the clerk's files:
(A) First page, $2
(B) Next 19 pages, 50 cents per page.
(C) All remaining pages, 25 cents per page."
Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 25, par. 27.2a (now 705 ILCS 105/27.2a (West 1992)).
None of the above statutes places a duty on the clerk to provide reproduction services for court records. Sections 13 and 16 of the Clerks of Courts Act do not even mention reproduction services; Section 13 of the Local Records Act refers only to reproduction of documents already reproduced on film; and Supreme Court Rule 104(d) is limited to the situation where a plaintiff has not served required court papers on a defendant. None of these statutes alone or together imposes a general duty on the clerk to reproduce court records. The clerk's duty is to maintain court records and to allow free access to examine and take memoranda of the records.
Plaintiffs also assert that the reproduction fees violate the free access to justice clause because they impermissibly raise general revenue and do not relate to the operation and maintenance of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Midwest Med. Records Ass'n, Inc. v. Brown
...defendant's conviction); People v. Heller , 2017 IL App (4th) 140658, ¶ 74, 410 Ill.Dec. 834, 71 N.E.3d 1113 (same); Lee v. Pucinski , 267 Ill. App. 3d 489, 204 Ill.Dec. 868, 642 N.E.2d 769 (1994) (statutory fees charged under Clerks of Courts Act for reproduction of records did not violate......
-
People v. Carter
... ... Maxon, 318 Ill.App.3d 1209, 253 Ill.Dec. 57, 744 N.E.2d 339 (2001) (fees charges by clerks of the court for reproduction of court records do not violate a litigants constitutional right to access the courts); Lee v. Pucinski, 267 Ill.App.3d 489, 494, 204 Ill.Dec. 868, 642 N.E.2d 769 (1994) (mandatory $1 fee charged for dispute resolution fund does not violate constitutional right to access the courts); Wenger v. Finley, 185 Ill. App.3d 907, 915, 133 Ill.Dec. 782, 541 N.E.2d 1220 (1989) (upholding the ... ...
-
Jenkins v. Leininger
... ... 378, 641 N.E.2d 602); and where recovery is sought on the basis of constitutional violations, it is not sufficient to allege those violations generally; rather, specific facts must be set forth to rebut the presumption of constitutionality. Lee v. Pucinski (1994), 267 Ill.App.3d 489, 204 Ill.Dec. 868, 642 N.E.2d 769 ... Article X, section 1 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 provides in pertinent part as follows: ... "Section 1. GOAL--FREE SCHOOLS ... A fundamental goal of the People of the State is the ... ...
-
Schultz v. Lakewood Elec. Corp.
... ... He shall obtain justice by law, freely, completely, and promptly." Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 12. Section 12 relates to costs, fees, and charges for access to the court system. See Rose v. Pucinski, 321 Ill.App.3d 92, 94, 254 Ill.Dec. 43, 746 N.E.2d 800 (2001) (compulsory fee required upon filing of lawsuit to fund mandatory arbitration program); Mellon v. Coffelt, 313 Ill.App.3d 619, 624, 246 Ill.Dec. 422, 730 N.E.2d 102 (2000) (same); Zamarron v. Pucinski, 282 Ill.App.3d 354, 359-60, ... ...