{
  "id": 126422,
  "name": "THE TAZEWELL COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tazewell County Board of Review v. Property Tax Appeal Board",
  "decision_date": "2001-06-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 3 \u2014 00\u20140273",
  "first_page": "949",
  "last_page": "953",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "322 Ill. App. 3d 949"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "692 N.E.2d 260",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "263"
        },
        {
          "page": "263"
        },
        {
          "page": "261"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 Ill. 2d 228",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        821393
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "235"
        },
        {
          "page": "234-35"
        },
        {
          "page": "230"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/181/0228-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "435 N.E.2d 144",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "148"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 Ill. App. 3d 856",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5470976
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "861"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/105/0856-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "688 N.E.2d 81",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "86"
        },
        {
          "page": "86"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 Ill. 2d 121",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        801361
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "133"
        },
        {
          "page": "133"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/179/0121-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 463,
    "char_count": 8249,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.764,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.00442245860666008
    },
    "sha256": "f43c5e96e014f2fc1c25d33beb64c7fb033c7f5783f8593bed4e814a8bf4b49e",
    "simhash": "1:8efb741ed2ac1488",
    "word_count": 1322
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:05:07.459628+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE TAZEWELL COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE LYTTON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe taxpayers unsuccessfully appealed increases in their property tax assessments to the Board of Review (Board) and the Property Tax Appeal Board (PTAB). They sought administrative review in the circuit court, but settled the case prior to trial.\nSome of these taxpayers then filed petitions with PTAB seeking to reduce their assessments for later years. The Board filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that they had not exhausted their administrative remedies. PTAB denied the motion, and the Board filed a complaint for writ of mandamus in the trial court. The taxpayers filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted. The Board appeals, and we affirm.\nFACTS\nThe Board increased the property tax assessments for 1994 and certain subsequent years of several new homes built in the Ville Lumiere subdivision in Tazewell County. The affected taxpayers unsuccessfully appealed these changes to the Board and PTAB. They then sought administrative review in the circuit court, but the parties entered into a settlement agreement prior to trial. In the settlement, the parties agreed on new assessments for the years in question. The settlement specifically stated that the new values were \u201ca compromise of disputed litigation, and *** not deemed to be fair market value.\u201d The circuit court entered the settlement as an agreed order and remanded the cause to PTAB, ordering it to \u201crender decisions lowering the assessments of the particular parcels pursuant to the settlement agreement of the parties to those assessments shown\u201d on the agreement. The order also ordered PTAB to remand the cases to the Board, as well as to the county clerk and treasurer with directions to lower the assessments and to provide the taxpayers with the appropriate refunds.\nSome of the taxpayers then filed new petitions directly to PTAB challenging their 1996 and 1997 assessments, which had not been included in the original settlement agreement. The Board filed a motion to dismiss these petitions,' arguing that PTAB lacked jurisdiction because the taxpayers had not exhausted their administrative remedies by seeking relief from the Board and did not fall within the exception to this requirement in section 16 \u2014 185 of the Property Tax Code (Code) (35 ILCS 200/16 \u2014 185 (West 1998)). PTAB denied the motion, and the Board filed a complaint for writ of mandamus in the trial court, seeking to prevent PTAB from exercising jurisdiction over the petitions. The taxpayers filed a motion to dismiss the Board\u2019s complaint, which was granted. The Board appeals the trial court\u2019s dismissal order.\nDISCUSSION\nThe Board argues that PTAB did not have jurisdiction over the taxpayers\u2019 petitions because they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and did not fall into one of the statutory exceptions to this doctrine.\nParagraph 3 of section 16 \u2014 185 of the Code permits taxpayers to appeal directly to PTAB when it \u201crenders a decision lowering the assessment *** after the deadline for filing complaints with the board of review.\u201d 35 ILCS 200/16 \u2014 185 (West 1998). The Board contends that PTAB lacked jurisdiction because it did not render a \u201cdecision lowering the assessment\u201d within the meaning of this exception. It is undisputed that the assessments were reduced after the applicable deadline.\nIn reviewing the dismissal of a complaint for mandamus, this court must consider de nova whether the well-pleaded facts in the Board\u2019s complaint allege a clear right to relief, a clear duty for PTAB to act, and PTAB\u2019s clear authority to comply with the writ. Noyola v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 179 Ill. 2d 121, 133, 688 N.E.2d 81, 86 (1997). In this case, the only issue on appeal is the Board\u2019s right to relief.\nThe Board first asserts that the order was not based on \u201cequity and the weight of the evidence\u201d as required by the Code and merely adopted the assessment values in the parties\u2019 settlement agreement. However, this argument misses the point, since it addresses the sufficiency of the evidence supporting PTAB\u2019s decision rather than the agency\u2019s jurisdiction. We note that PTAB \u201chas jurisdiction to make a wrong as well as a right decision.\u201d One Way Liquors, Inc. v. Byrne, 105 Ill. App. 3d 856, 861, 435 N.E.2d 144, 148 (1982).\nThe Board also contends that PTAB did not consider the merits of the taxpayers\u2019 appeal and violated its statutory duty to consider only the fair market value of the properties. The Board supports this argument by stating that PTAB previously rejected the taxpayers\u2019 claim that their assessments were improperly based on recent sale prices in the area while the assessments of comparable properties in other subdivisions were not similarly adjusted.\nIn Walsh v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 181 Ill. 2d 228, 235, 692 N.E.2d 260, 263 (1998), our supreme court held that assessing certain properties based on their true fair cash value, as evidenced by recent sales, while assessing like properties under a different method is an impermissible violation of the uniformity clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. IX, \u00a7 4(a) (requiring that taxes be determined \u201cuniformly by valu[e]\u201d)). The court refused to allow the adjustment of some assessments to meet the Code\u2019s requirement that they reflect fair cash value even though the assessment method that had been used since 1957 had resulted in many properties being assessed at amounts that were totally unrelated to that value. Walsh, 181 Ill. 2d at 234-35, 692 N.E.2d at 263.\nBecause Walsh was released after PTAB rejected the taxpayers\u2019 original, uniformity argument, it was not considered in that case. However, PTAB\u2019s second decision is consistent with the uniformity clause of the Illinois Constitution as interpreted in Walsh. It is not contrary to the law of this state.\nThe Board next argues that public policy supports its position because upholding PTAB\u2019s reduction of the assessments in this case would discourage boards of review from entering into settlement agreements due to their uncertainty over the effect on assessments for later years.\nThis argument, however, is unpersuasive because its converse is also true. If taxpayers cannot rely on the statutory exception in section 16 \u2014 185 of the Code, they may hesitate to enter into settlement agreements, knowing that new proceedings for subsequent assessments would require duplicating evidence and arguments already presented. This could also cause an unnecessary backlog of cases before both PTAB and local boards of review.\nFinally, the Board claims that PTAB lacked authority to enter into a settlement agreement or to rely on that agreement. We disagree. PTAB did not enter into the settlement agreement in this case, nor is there any evidence that it relied solely on the assessments in that agreement. Moreover, the argument that PTAB relied on improper evidence in its decision attacks the order on its merits rather than on jurisdiction.\nThe Board\u2019s complaint for mandamus failed to clearly state a right to relief and thus was properly dismissed by the trial court. See Noyola v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 179 Ill. 2d 121, 133, 688 N.E.2d 81, 86 (1997).\nCONCLUSION\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Tazewell County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nHOLDRIDGE and McDADE, JJ., concur.\n\u201cFair cash value is synonymous with fair market value ***.\u201d Walsh, 181 Ill. 2d at 230,692 N.E.2d at 261.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE LYTTON"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stewart Umholtz, State\u2019s Attorney, of Pekin (John X. Breslin, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), and David O. Edwards (argued), of Giffin, Winning, Cohen & Bodewes, P.C., of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "James E. Ryan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General, and Brian F. Barov (argued), Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellee Property Tax Appeal Board.",
      "James W. Springer and Gary Schmidt, both of Kavanagh, Scully, Sudow, White & Frederick, P.C., of Peoria, for appellees Dennis Stoneburner and Christine Stoneburner.",
      "Bruce W. Thiemann (argued), of Peoria, for other appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE TAZEWELL COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nThird District\nNo. 3 \u2014 00\u20140273\nOpinion filed June 19, 2001.\nStewart Umholtz, State\u2019s Attorney, of Pekin (John X. Breslin, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), and David O. Edwards (argued), of Giffin, Winning, Cohen & Bodewes, P.C., of Springfield, for appellant.\nJames E. Ryan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General, and Brian F. Barov (argued), Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellee Property Tax Appeal Board.\nJames W. Springer and Gary Schmidt, both of Kavanagh, Scully, Sudow, White & Frederick, P.C., of Peoria, for appellees Dennis Stoneburner and Christine Stoneburner.\nBruce W. Thiemann (argued), of Peoria, for other appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0949-01",
  "first_page_order": 967,
  "last_page_order": 971
}