Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > In re Petition of Village of Hanover Park

In re Petition of Village of Hanover Park

Case Date: 04/06/2000
Court: 2nd District Appellate
Docket No: 2-99-0549

In re Petition of Village of Hanover Park, No. 2-99-0549

2nd District, 6 April 2000

In re PETITION OF THE VILLAGE OF HANOVER PARK, To Disconnect the Territoryof the Hanover Park Fire Protection District, f/k/a the Ontarioville Fire Protection District,Which Lies Within the Village of Hanover Park Corporate Limits

(The Village of Hanover Park, Petitioner-Appellee, v. The Hanover Park Fire ProtectionDistrict, Objector, and John McGuire, Clifford Baerlin, and Mark Hudson, Individually andin their capacities as Members of the Board of Trustees of the Hanover Park FireProtection District, Objectors-Appellants).

Appeal from the CircuitCourt of Du Page County.

No. 99--MC--1

Honorable Bonnie M.Wheaton, Judge, Presiding.

JUSTICE McLAREN delivered the opinion of the court:

Objectors John McGuire, Clifford Baerlin, and Mark Hudson (objectors) appeal from the trial court's orders denying theobjectors' motion to dismiss and granting the petition of the Village of Hanover Park. We affirm.

The Village of Hanover Park (the village) is located in both Cook and Du Page counties. Fire protection and emergencymedical services for the village had been provided by the Hanover Park Fire Protection District (the district), formerlyknown as the Ontarioville Fire Protection District, since 1956. The district also included areas outside of the villageboundaries.

On February 5, 1999, the village filed a petition to disconnect all of the territory lying within its corporate boundaries fromthe district and provide its own fire and emergency services. The district and three of its trustees, John McGuire, CliffordBaerlin, and Mark Hudson, filed an objection to the petition and a motion to dismiss the petition. On April 20 the trial courtdenied the objectors' motion to dismiss. The village filed a motion to dismiss the objection, which was also denied. After afull hearing, the court found that the petition should be granted and ordered the territory to be disconnected from thedistrict. This appeal followed.

The petition to disconnect was brought pursuant to section 21 of the Fire Protection District Act (the Act), which providesin part:

"The territory of a fire protection district within the limits of any city, village or incorporated town may bedisconnected from the district in the manner hereinafter provided; (1) if more than 50% of the total territory of the fireprotection district is within the limits of the same city, village or incorporated town filing the petition fordisconnection; (2) if such municipality, prior to the filing of a petition to disconnect, assumes by ordinance all thebonded indebtedness and other debts of the fire protection district; and, (3) if such municipality, prior to the filing ofsuch petition, assumes by ordinance the obligation of providing fire protection service to the remaining territory of thefire protection district equivalent to the service being rendered by such district." 70 ILCS 705/21 (1998).

The objectors first contend that this section of the Act is unconstitutional special legislation. We disagree.

Article 4, section 13, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 provides:

"The General Assembly shall pass no special or local law when a general law is or can be made applicable. Whether ageneral law is or can be made applicable shall be a matter for judicial determination." Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV,