People ex rel. Wangelin v. Gillespie

• Decision Date: 24 October 1934
• Docket Number: No. 22493.,22493.
• Citation: People ex rel. Wangelin v. Gillespie, 358 Ill. 40, 192 N.E. 664 (Ill. 1934)
• Parties: PEOPLE et rel. WANGELIN, County Collector, v. GILLESPIE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

358 Ill. 40

192 N.E. 664

PEOPLE et rel. WANGELIN, CountyCollector,

v.GILLESPIE.

No. 22493.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 24, 1934.

Proceeding by the People, on the relation of Richard S. Wangelin, County Collector of St. Clair County, for a judgment for delinquent real estate taxes assessed against the property of George B. Gillespie.Judgment for relator, and respondent appeals.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.Appeal from St. Clair County Court; Joseph E. Fleming, Judge.

Whitnel & Browning, of East St. Louis, and Gillespie, Burke & Gillespie, of Springfield, for appellant.

Louis P. Zerweck, State's Atty., of Belleville, for appellee.

HERRICK, Justice.

The appellee, as county collector of St. Clair county, applied to the county court of that county for judgment for delinquent real estate taxes for the year 1932 assessed against the property of the appellant.The appellant filed objections to the taxes assessed, and in compliance with the statute paid 75 per cent. thereof.The objections charged (1) that the board of assessors and board of review of St. Clair county are not legally constituted bodies; and (2) that the valuation placed upon the property of the appellant by the taxing bodies is so grossly in excess of its true or market value that the valuation is fraudulent, an unjust discrimination against the appellant, and in violation of his constitutional rights under the state and Federal Constitutions.The county court overruled the objections and entered judgment for the full amount of the taxes in controversy.From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

[1] To permit the question to be decided in this proceeding as to whether the board of review and the board of assessors are severally legally constituted bodies would be to authorize such issue to be raised and tried in a collateral proceeding.Such issue must be made by a direct proceeding, and cannot be inquired into in the present cause.

At the outset of the case, the appellee urges that the objection attacking the assessment of the appellant's property on the ground of fraud is not specific enough to raise that question.No motion was made in the trial court to strike the objection, nor was there any request made of the trial court that the objector be required to make his objection more specific.The case was tried on the issue of fraud made by such objection without protest on the part of the appellee.He cannot now be heard to complain of the insufficiency of the objection as a pleading in the cause.

The evidence shows that the appellant filed his complaint with the board of review, charging, in substance, that the valuation placed upon his property was not the true or market value, but a highly excessive valuation, amounting to a fraudulent overvaluation.A hearing was had on such objection by the board of review, but it refused to reduce the valuation.No question is raised in the record that the appellant did not exhaust his remedy before the board of review.

The real estate consists of two tracts on the west side of Collinsville avenue, in East St. Louis, outside of the main business district of the city.One property has a frontage of 55 feet and is hereafter referred to as the 55-foot lot.The other property has a frontage of 25 feet, and is hereafter referred to as the 25-foot lot.There is no substantial conflict in the evidence as to the condition of the improvements on the properties on April 1.

The evidence shows that the 55-foot lot was purchased by the appellant in 1915 or 1916 for $33,000, and at that time had the same building upon it as it had on April 1, 1932.The 55-foot lot was improved by a three-story building.This building is a composite structure.The original building at the rear of the lot was a church building constructed in 1878 and at that time built of secondhand brick.The front part of the building next to the street was constructed in 1892.In 1896 the building was badly damaged by a cyclone.After the cyclone, the building was repaired in 1896 and a third story built as a lodge hall.There are three elevations on the first floor of the building.The second floor was divided into living rooms, and the third floor has been used as a music hall and lodge room.The entire building had been unoccupied for a period of three years immediately prior to April 1, 1932, except on a few occasions it had been used as a display room for temporary purposes at a rental of $1 per day.After the former tenants of the lower floor vacated the property, the building was burglarized, and all the piping and plumbing above the first floor was stripped from the building and has never been replaced.No new furnace has been put in the building since that time.The roof needs extensive repairs.No general repairs have been made on the building for eight or ten years prior to April 1, 1932, and on that date it was in extremely bad repair.The evidence shows that to put the ground floor of the building in a state of repair for use as a storeroom would cost approximately $5,000, with no assurance that a tenant could then be procured.The property has been listed with realtors for sale, but no offers of purchase have been made prior to April 1, 1932.There is evidence that, in order to make a first-class business building of this property, it would be cheaper to tear it down and reconstruct it rather than to repair it.

The building on the 25-foot lot is of brick, two stories in height, the lower story being a storeroom and the upper story being originally fitted for living rooms.The building has a flat roof, with interior wood construction.While the record does not show the exact length of time that this building has been vacant, yet the record discloses that it had been unoccupied for a considerable time prior to April 1, and was unoccupied on April 1, 1932.It was in a bad state of repair.The highest rental for this building was $75 per month, and that was during the period referred to in the record as the ‘boom period.’The evidence shows that, if the building could be rented at all, no rental approximating $75 per month could be obtained for it in its present condition.Since about 1927 there has been a declining market for properties of the type and character involved here.

Excluding the testimony of the appellant, there were several competent and qualified witnesses who testified upon the subject of valuations.The maximum valuation of the 55-foot lot, including the buildings and improvements thereon, as shown by the testimony, was $35,000, with a minimum valuation of $17,000.The same witnesses testified as to the full, fair cash market value of the 25-foot lot as of April 1.The maximum valuation placed on this property on that basis was $15,000 and the minimum valuation was $9,500.The evidence shows that other property in the immediate neighborhood was valued at much less than the appellant's property on a front-foot basis.

The undisputed evidence shows that real property in the city of East St. Louis was assessed as of April...