Find Legal Information

Docket No. 97280-Agenda 27-September 2004.

ST. CLAIR COUNTY, Appellant, v. KATHRYN PHILLIPS et al., Appellees.

Opinion filed October 21, 2004.
 

JUSTICE GARMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

This case comes before us on appeal as a matter of right pursuantto Supreme Court Rule 302(a) (134 Ill. 2d R. 302(a)), because thecircuit court of St. Clair County has declared a state statute to beunconstitutional. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgmentof the circuit court.

Pursuant to section 5-1121 of the Counties Code (55 ILCS5/5-1121 (West 2000)), plaintiff St. Clair County filed a petition fordemolition in the circuit court on December 28, 2001, in which itsought authorization to demolish structures located at 128 ArlingtonDrive and 132 Arlington Drive in Belleville, Illinois. In addition to anorder permitting demolition, the County requested expedited settingof a hearing and recovery of all costs of demolition and rehabilitationof the land, as well as court costs and attorney fees. Defendants, all ofwhom hold some legal or equitable interest in the subject properties,filed their answer on June 3, 2002. After numerous delays, the matterwas set for trial in October 2003.

Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that section5-1121 of the Counties Code is unconstitutional, citing Village ofLake Villa v. Stokovich, 334 Ill. App. 3d 488 (2002), in which theappellate court found section 11-31-1 of the Illinois Municipal Code(65 ILCS 5/11-31-1 (West 1996)) unconstitutional on due processgrounds. According to defendants, the authority given to countyboards in section 5-1121 of the County Code "directly parallels" theauthority given to municipalities in section 11-31-1 of the MunicipalCode. Thus, defendants claimed, because section 11-31-1 wasunconstitutional, section 5-1121 did not pass constitutional muster.Specifically, they argued that, under Stokovich, a statute thatpermitted demolition upon findings that the structure is dangerous andunsafe and beyond reasonable repair, without allowing the propertyowner to repair the property after such findings are made, constitutesan unlawful taking without due process and without justcompensation. See Stokovich, 334 Ill. App. 3d at 503-04. On October6, 2003, the circuit court granted defendants' motion to dismiss,finding section 5-1121 unconstitutional.

Subsequently, in Village of Lake Villa v. Stokovich, 211 Ill. 2d106 (2004), this court held that section 11-31-1 of the MunicipalCode is not unconstitutional because the procedure established by thestatute is rationally related to the public interest in health and safetyand, further, the method chosen by the legislature to protect andfurther this interest is reasonable.

In the present case, the circuit court did not explain the basis forits conclusion that section 5-1121 is unconstitutional. However, as theonly authority cited to the circuit court was the appellate courtdecision in Stokovich, it may reasonably be inferred that the circuitcourt relied, at least in part, on this authority. We, therefore, vacatethe judgment of the circuit court and remand for reconsideration inlight of our decision in Stokovich.

For the forgoing reason, we vacate the judgment of the circuitcourt and remand for further proceedings.

Vacated and remanded.