{ "id": 1096604, "name": "HARVEY E. MORSE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION et al., Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Morse v. Department of Professional Regulation", "decision_date": "2000-10-06", "docket_number": "No. 4-00-0094", "first_page": "664", "last_page": "669", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "316 Ill. App. 3d 664" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "171 A.L.R. 351", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "year": 1947, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "noting cases of heir hunting and general attitude of distaste by courts, citing cases from the 1930s" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "220 B.R. 854", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "B.R.", "case_ids": [ 11839021 ], "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/br/220/0854-01" ] }, { "cite": "216 B.R. 515", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "B.R.", "case_ids": [ 1213575 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "526", "parenthetical": "noting the \"inherent unfairness involved in finders' method of solicitation of their business and fixing their fees\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/br/216/0515-01" ] }, { "cite": "127 Wash. 2d 124", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wash. 2d", "case_ids": [ 433025 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wash-2d/127/0124-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 Wash. App. 763", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wash. App.", "case_ids": [ 1748129 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "778", "parenthetical": "Alexander, J., dissenting" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wash-app/73/0763-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 N.J. 461", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J.", "case_ids": [ 307879 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "473", "parenthetical": "noting practice of the Treasurer not to disclose the amount due in abandoned accounts was in reaction to the \"deceptive and fraudulent practices of heir hunters in pursuing their business\"" }, { "page": "918-19", "parenthetical": "noting practice of the Treasurer not to disclose the amount due in abandoned accounts was in reaction to the \"deceptive and fraudulent practices of heir hunters in pursuing their business\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nj/124/0461-01" ] }, { "cite": "709 N.E.2d 715", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "722" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 Ill. App. 3d 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 564644 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "94" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/304/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "586 N.E.2d 826", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "833" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "224 Ill. App. 3d 1046", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5252699 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1056" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/224/1046-01" ] }, { "cite": "543 N.E.2d 579", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "582" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "187 Ill. App. 3d 603", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2663704 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "607-08" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/187/0603-01" ] }, { "cite": "664 N.E.2d 61", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "66" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "171 Ill. 2d 230", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 57346 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "239" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/171/0230-01" ] }, { "cite": "599 N.E.2d 892", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "898" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "149 Ill. 2d 496", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5599237 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "510" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/149/0496-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 635, "char_count": 10282, "ocr_confidence": 0.755, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.6343475431493036e-07, "percentile": 0.6893784154983553 }, "sha256": "4f4202980b6d9d5a058456f9c883bee5baed7112a6f298bfb94467bab0a5ce84", "simhash": "1:a9725cbd75eecf45", "word_count": 1622 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:10:00.608787+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "HARVEY E. MORSE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION et al., Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE COOK\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendants, the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation and Leonard A. Sherman, Director (collectively referred to as Department), appeal from the circuit court\u2019s reversal of the Department\u2019s finding that Harvey Morse was unlawfully working as a private detective without a license. We affirm.\nOn March 23, 1998, the Department issued a cease and desist order to Morse, finding that Morse \u201cwas operating as a private detective in Illinois by contacting individuals regarding locating personal property for a fee.\u201d The Department\u2019s action was prompted by a September 24, 1996, letter that Morse, a Florida resident, sent to an Illinois resident promoting his \u201cInternational Genealogical Research\u201d firm. Morse stated, \u201c[w]e wish to inform you that we have been conducting research and investigation that indicate that you might be entitled to receive money or assets of which you are currently unaware.\u201d Morse\u2019s firm specializes in what is commonly referred to as \u201cheir hunting,\u201d which typically involves locating persons who are entitled to recover unclaimed estate assets. Morse identifies unclaimed assets, uses genealogical research to trace the potential claimants, and then offers to assist the claimant in retrieving the assets for a 40% contingent fee.\nWe must determine if Morse\u2019s business activities are subject to the Private Detective, Private Alarm, Private Security, and Locksmith Act of 1993 (Act) (225 ILCS 446/1 through 299 (West 1998)). Section 5 of the Act defines \u201cprivate detective\u201d as:\n\u201cany person who by any means, including but not limited to manual or electronic methods, engages in the business of, accepts employment to furnish, or agrees to make or makes investigations for fees or other valuable consideration to obtain information with reference to:\n(3) The location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property.\u201d 225 ILCS 446/5 (West 1998).\nIn response to the cease and desist order, Morse filed a motion to vacate -with the Department, arguing that he was not acting as a private detective; rather, he was engaging in genealogy, an exempt practice under the Act. Section 30(a) of the Act provides:\n\u201c(a) This Act does not apply to:\n(9 \u2014 5) A person, firm, or corporation engaged solely and exclusively in tracing and compiling lineage or ancestry.\u201d 225 ILCS 446/30(a) (West 1998).\nThe Department responded to Morse\u2019s motion, arguing that Morse was engaged in \u201c[t]he location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property\u201d for a fee (225 ILCS 446/5 (West 1998) (subsection (3) of definition of \u201cprivate detective\u201d)) and that his activities constituted acting as a private detective. Director Sherman denied Morse\u2019s motion to vacate, and Morse subsequently filed a complaint for administrative review in the circuit court.\nAfter reviewing the record and the parties\u2019 written submissions, the circuit court found that Morse was \u201cnot in the business of finding lost property\u201d as referenced in the Act. However, the circuit court also noted that Morse was not engaged in \u201cwhat is commonly understood as genealogical research\u201d but was \u201cemploying techniques of both a private detective and a genealogist, [as] a tracer of unclaimed assets.\u201d Ultimately, the circuit court held that, as a matter of law, Morse\u2019s activities were not governed by the Act. The circuit court reversed the Director\u2019s decision and vacated the cease and desist order, finding that the Department could not use such a broad, sweeping application of the Act to regulate Morse\u2019s activities.\nThe Department appealed, asserting the same arguments that it did before the circuit court. The facts are undisputed in this case, and the parties agree that we are presented solely with issues of law; thus, we will conduct a de novo review of the limited record on appeal. Courts give substantial weight and deference to the interpretation placed on a statute by the agency charged with its administration and enforcement (Central City Education Ass\u2019n v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 149 Ill. 2d 496, 510, 599 N.E.2d 892, 898 (1992)) unless it is erroneous as a matter of law. However, we are not bound by the administrative agency\u2019s interpretation of a statute. Boaden v. Department of Law Enforcement, 171 Ill. 2d 230, 239, 664 N.E.2d 61, 66 (1996). Our decision hinges upon the interpretation of sections 5 and 30(a)(9 \u2014 5) of the Act (225 ILCS 446/5, 30(a)(9 \u2014 5) (West 1998)).\nI. LOST PROPERTY\nThe circuit court ruled that the assets Morse located were not \u201clost property\u201d but unclaimed assets, because \u201clost,\u201d as used in the Act, \u201cpresumes prior ownership and possession.\u201d The Department argues that a person\u2019s entitlement to unclaimed estate assets qualifies as \u201clost property.\u201d \u201cLost property\u201d has been defined at common law as property that was unintentionally separated from the dominion and control of its owner. Kahr v. Markland, 187 Ill. App. 3d 603, 607-08, 543 N.E.2d 579, 582 (1989); Hendle v. Stevens, 224 Ill. App. 3d 1046, 1056, 586 N.E.2d 826, 833 (1992). Black\u2019s defines \u201clost property\u201d as \u201c[p]roperty that the owner no longer possesses because of accident, negligence, or carelessness, and that cannot be located by an ordinary, diligent search.\u201d Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 1233 (7th ed. 1999).\nWe must apply these definitions, giving the statutory words and phrases their plain, ordinary, and reasonable meaning. In re Marriage of Takata, 304 Ill. App. 3d 85, 94, 709 N.E.2d 715, 722 (1999). Applying these definitions to the facts presented here, we cannot conclude that the unclaimed assets referred to in Morse\u2019s letter are those that fall within the plain and ordinary meaning of \u201clost property\u201d referred to by the statute. The assets at issue here were not \u201cunintentionally separated from the control\u201d of the heirs. Further, it would strain reason to find that the heirs no longer possess the assets \u201cbecause of accident, negligence, or carelessness.\u201d Utilizing heir hunting to access unclaimed estate assets is not synonymous with the \u201clocation, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property.\u201d 225 ILCS 446/5 (West 1998).\nII. GENEALOGY EXCEPTION\nIn 1998, the General Assembly amended the Act, providing a specific exemption for individuals who engage exclusively in tracing and compiling lineage and ancestry. 225 ILCS 446/30(a)(9 \u2014 5) (West 1998). Morse argues that he falls within this exception. In support of this claim, he emphasizes that his letterhead plainly refers to his line of work as \u201cInternational Genealogical Research.\u201d Morse also argues that the body of the letter establishes that he is merely in the business of locating people (which is what genealogy is all about), not necessarily in the business of locating property. Genealogy is defined as \u201c[t]he summary history or table of a family, showing how the persons there named are connected together.\u201d Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 682 (6th ed. 1990). Morse argues that his business is precisely what the legislature had in mind when it enacted the exception provided in section 30(a) (9 \u2014 5). We disagree.\nGenealogical research does involve \u201cdetective\u201d type of activities necessary to trace a family\u2019s lineage. Morse, however, does more than simply create family trees. His incentive is the financial payoff after tracing unclaimed assets to the proper heirs. We cannot conclude that the General Assembly intended to specifically exempt \u201cheir finding\u201d through this exception in the Act. Morse\u2019s activities do not fall squarely within the confines of the exception as he does more than \u201cexclusively\u201d engage in \u201ctracing and compiling lineage or ancestry.\u201d 225 ILCS 446/30(a)(9 \u2014 5) (West 1998). We agree with the circuit court that Morse\u2019s business falls somewhere between private detective work and exclusive genealogy.\nAs a final matter, we note that courts in several jurisdictions and commentators have noted the problems of unregulated \u201cheir hunting,\u201d including fraud, extortion, excessive fees, and unauthorized practice of law. See Twiss v. State of New Jersey, Department of Treasury, Office of Financial Management, 124 N.J. 461, 473, 591 A.2d 913, 918-19 (1991) (noting practice of the Treasurer not to disclose the amount due in abandoned accounts was in reaction to the \u201cdeceptive and fraudulent practices of heir hunters in pursuing their business\u201d); Nelson v. McGoldrick, 73 Wash. App. 763, 778, 871 E2d 177, 184 (1994) (Alexander, J., dissenting) (heir hunters\u2019 pressuring clients with the equivalent of criminal extortion and withholding information from another regarding a person\u2019s legal claims is extortion), rev\u2019d, 127 Wash. 2d 124, 896 E2d 1258 (1994); In re Taylor, 216 B.R. 515, 526 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (noting the \u201cinherent unfairness involved in finders\u2019 method of solicitation of their business and fixing their fees\u201d), appeal denied, 220 B.R. 854 (E.D. Pa. 1998); Annotation, Heir Hunting, 171 A.L.R. 351 (1947) (noting cases of heir hunting and general attitude of distaste by courts, citing cases from the 1930s).\nThe Department argues that the problems associated with the unregulated practice of heir hunting, which include fraud, extortion, excessive fees, and the unauthorized practice of law, are precisely the type of \u201cevil to be remedied\u201d by the Act. 225 ILCS 446/10 (West 1998). The Department encourages us to interpret the Act liberally to effectuate that purpose. While we recognize the Department\u2019s legitimate concerns regarding the business of heir hunting, we cannot sanction such a broad and sweeping application of the Act. As the circuit court pointed out, this is an issue better reserved for the legislature, and we decline to strain reason to find that Morse\u2019s activities are regulated by the existing statutes governing private detectives.\nAffirmed.\nGARMAN and KNECHT, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE COOK" } ], "attorneys": [ "James E. Ryan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General, and Timothy K. McPike (argued), Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellants.", "William P Hardy (argued) and Clare E. Connor, both of Hinshaw & Culbertson, of Springfield, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "HARVEY E. MORSE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nFourth District\nNo. 4-00-0094\nArgued September 13, 2000.\n\u2014 Opinion filed October 6, 2000.\nJames E. Ryan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General, and Timothy K. McPike (argued), Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellants.\nWilliam P Hardy (argued) and Clare E. Connor, both of Hinshaw & Culbertson, of Springfield, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0664-01", "first_page_order": 684, "last_page_order": 689 }