Vill. of Lake in the Hills, an Ill. Mun. Corp. v. Niklaus

• Decision Date: 15 May 2014
• Docket Number: No. 2–13–0654.,2–13–0654.
• Citation: 2014 IL App (2d) 130654,11 N.E.3d 26,381 Ill.Dec. 663
• Parties: The VILLAGE OF LAKE IN the HILLS, an Illinois Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Dennis NIKLAUS, Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2014 IL App (2d) 130654

11 N.E.3d 26

381 Ill.Dec. 663

The VILLAGE OF LAKE IN the HILLS, an Illinois Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.Dennis NIKLAUS, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 2–13–0654.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

May 15, 2014.

Jennifer J. Gibson, of Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle, of Crystal Lake, for appellant.

No brief filed for appellee.

Brian D. Day and Roger Huebner, both of Illinois Municipal League, of Springfield, amicus curiae.

OPINION

Justice HUDSON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Division 2.1 of the Illinois Municipal Code (Municipal Code) (65 ILCS 5/1–2.1–1 et seq. (West 2012)) permits a home-rule municipality to establish an administrative adjudication hearing system to adjudicate the violation of certain municipal ordinances. In the present case, an administrative adjudication hearing officer for the Village of Lake in the Hills (Village) found defendant, Dennis Niklaus, liable for various municipal ordinance violations and assessed fines against defendant. Thereafter, the Village sought to enforce the hearing officer's orders in the circuit court of McHenry County pursuant to division 2.1 of the Municipal Code. The court denied the Village's petitions, finding that there is no statutory authority that would allow the Village to enroll and enforce the hearing officer's orders in the circuit court. Thereafter, the Village initiated the present appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we disagree with the trial court and hold that an order rendered following an administrative adjudication proceeding held pursuant to division 2.1 of the Municipal Code is enforceable in the circuit court. We further hold that the method attempted by the Village to initiate enforcement in this case-filing exemplified copies of the hearing officer's orders in the circuit court of the county in which the municipality is located—is appropriate under division 2.1 of the Municipal Code.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The facts relevant to this appeal are not disputed. The Village is a home-rule municipality located in McHenry County, Illinois. Defendant is a resident of the Village. The Village operates an administrative adjudication hearing system pursuant to division 2.1 of the Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/1–2.1–1 et seq. (West 2012)) and section 15 of the Lake in the Hills Municipal Code (Village Code) (Lake in the Hills Municipal Code § 15 (amended May 22, 2008)).

¶ 4 Between May 3, 2012, and July 2, 2012, the Village charged defendant by complaint on an almost daily basis with violations of sections 6.04(A) and 6.06 of the Village Code (Lake in the Hills Municipal Code §§ 6.04(A), 6.06 (amended December 13, 2007)). Section 6.04(A) of the Village Code provides in relevant part that “no person shall erect or maintain any structure or thing on, over or under any street, alley, sidewalk, or public right-of-way except by permit from the Board of Trustees.” Lake in the Hills Municipal Code § 6.04(A) (amended December 13, 2007). Section 6.06 of the Village Code provides in relevant part that “[n]o person shall place any materials on or over any street, sidewalk, or public place without a permit from the Public Works Director.” Lake in the Hills Municipal Code § 6.06 (amended December 13, 2007). The various notices commanded defendant to appear before the Village's administrative adjudication hearing officer at certain dates and times to respond to the charges alleged in the complaints.

¶ 5 On June 13, June 27, July 11, July 25, and August 8, 2012, the hearing officer presiding over the adjudicatory hearings entered orders finding defendant liable for the violations and assessing fines of $5,000, $5,000, $6,250, $13,750, and $17,500, respectively, plus costs of hearing. The orders entered on June 13, June 27, July 25, and August 8, 2012, were entered by default after defendant failed to appear on the required dates and at the required times. The order entered on July 11, 2012, was entered following a hearing.

¶ 6 Thereafter, the Village sought to enforce the administrative adjudication orders in the circuit court of McHenry County. To this end, on July 23, 2012, the Village filed with the McHenry County recorder a memorandum of judgment with respect to each of the administrative adjudication orders entered on June 13, June 27, and July 11, 2012. On August 6, 2012, the Village filed with the McHenry County circuit clerk copies of the June 13, June 27, and July 11, 2012, administrative adjudication orders and a copy of the memorandum of judgment for each order. Each pleading was preceded by a “Foreign/Intrastate Judgment Cover Sheet” form provided by the McHenry County circuit clerk. The cover sheet instructed the filer to check one of two boxes to indicate the type of case, either “Transcript of Judgment” or “Petition to Register Foreign Judgment.” See 735 ILCS 5/12–106 (West 2012) (providing for the enforcement of a judgment entered in any Illinois county upon the filing of a transcript of judgment in any other Illinois county); 735 ILCS 5/12–650 et seq. (West 2012) (pertaining to the registration of a foreign judgment). The Village checked the box labeled “ Petition to Register Foreign Judgment” on the cover sheet for each case. The pleading related to the June 13, 2012, administrative adjudication order was docketed in the trial court as case No. 12–SC–2558, the pleading related to the June 27, 2012, administrative adjudication order was docketed as case No. 12–SC–2560, and the pleading related to the July 11, 2012, administrative adjudication order was docketed as case No. 12–SC–2559.

¶ 7 On August 21, 2012, the Village filed supplementary proceedings in case Nos. 12–SC–2558, 12–SC–2559, and 12–SC–2560. See 735 ILCS 5/2–1402 (West 2012). On September 19, 2012, the trial court dismissed the supplementary proceedings and denied enforcement, finding that the administrative adjudication orders were not “certified or exemplified.” The trial court also ordered the Village to submit a brief as to the Village's authority to enforce an administrative adjudication order in the circuit court.

¶ 8 On September 21, 2012, the Village filed certified copies of the June 13, June 27, and July 11, 2012, administrative adjudication orders. On October 4, 2012, the Village submitted a memorandum of law in support of its request to enforce the administrative adjudication orders in the circuit court. Among other things, the Village argued that it has the authority to enforce the orders entered by its administrative adjudication hearing officer against defendant in the circuit court pursuant to section 1–2.1–8(b) of the Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/1–2.1–8(b) (West 2012)), which provides in relevant part that “the findings, decision, and order of the hearing officer may be enforced in the same manner as a judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction.” On October 11, 2012, the Village filed exemplified copies of the June 13, June 27, and July 11, 2012, administrative adjudication orders. On December 17, 2012, following brief argument, the court dismissed the proceedings without prejudice, reasoning that the box checked on each cover sheet filed on August 6, 2012, was the box for foreign judgments, which was the wrong box. The trial court granted the Village 30 days to file “an amended petition/registration action to enforce” the administrative adjudication orders.

¶ 9 On January 15, 2013, the Village filed in case Nos. 12–SC–2558, 12–SC–2559, and 12–SC–2560 three pleadings styled “Amended Petition to Enforce Administrative Adjudication Judgment in Home Rule Municipality,” seeking once again to enforce the June 13, June 27, and July 11, 2012, administrative adjudication orders. Also on January 15, 2013, the Village filed two pleadings styled “Petition to Enforce Administrative Adjudication Judgment in Home Rule Municipality,” seeking to enforce the July 25 and August 8, 2012, administrative adjudication orders. The pleading related to the July 25 order was docketed as case No. 13–LM–26, and the pleading related to the August 8 order was docketed as case No. 13–LM–27. All five petitions were accompanied by exemplified copies of the relevant administrative adjudication orders.

¶ 10 On March 28, 2013, defendant responded to the Village's amended petition in case No. 12–SC–2559, which related to the July 11, 2012, administrative adjudication order. In his response, defendant argued that the July 11 administrative adjudication order was not a final determination because it lacked specific findings. Defendant argued that, because the July 11 administrative adjudication order was not final, the time for administrative review had not passed and, therefore, the July 11 order could not yet be enforced. On June 7, 2013, the trial court held a hearing on the Village's amended petition in case No. 12–SC–2559. Following the hearing, the trial court denied the Village's amended petition. In so ruling, the trial court stated:

“The only relevant question before the court then becomes what subject matter jurisdiction in the enforcement of the administrative hearing order is conferred [to] the Illinois Circuit Court by the Illinois Municipal Code, section 65 ILCS 5/1–2.1–8. (Unintelligible) the language of the Act remained silent as to the Circuit Court's involvement in the enforcement of these hearing officer's orders. that, at most, the language of section 65 ILCS 5/1–2.1–8 fails to define what, if any, role the Illinois Circuit Courts have in the enforcement of the administrative order. It remains unclear whether or not the Illinois Courts even have a role in the enforcement of the hearing officer's orders. The act itself can be read to grant enforcement authority to the administrative adjudicatory officer themselves [ sic ].

Finally, even if the Act could be construed to grant subject matter jurisdiction of the Circuit Court [ sic ], the Act remains completely silent as to the mechanism of an (u...