{ "id": 4291050, "name": "ELTON MONSON, Superintendent of the Veterans Assistance Commission of Grundy County, Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE COUNTY OF GRUNDY, ILLINOIS, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Monson v. County of Grundy", "decision_date": "2009-10-15", "docket_number": "No. 3-09-0101", "first_page": "1091", "last_page": "1096", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "394 Ill. App. 3d 1091" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "740 N.E.2d 9", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "17", "parenthetical": "\" 'nonfeasance' is the omission of an act which a person ought to do\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "317 Ill. App. 3d 41", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1026067 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "51", "parenthetical": "\" 'nonfeasance' is the omission of an act which a person ought to do\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/317/0041-01" ] }, { "cite": "803 N.E.2d 13", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "29" }, { "page": "29-30" }, { "page": "29-30" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "346 Ill. App. 3d 125", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3832816 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "144" }, { "page": "144" }, { "page": "144" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/346/0125-01" ] }, { "cite": "908 N.E.2d 1066", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1070" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "391 Ill. App. 3d 459", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4286111 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "463" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/391/0459-01" ] }, { "cite": "812 N.E.2d 604", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "611" }, { "page": "612-13" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "351 Ill. App. 3d 47", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1083956 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "55" }, { "page": "57-58" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/351/0047-01" ] }, { "cite": "864 N.E.2d 1002", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1007" }, { "page": "1007" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "371 Ill. App. 3d 1165", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4268283 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1170" }, { "page": "1170" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/371/1165-01" ] }, { "cite": "654 N.E.2d 219", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "223" }, { "page": "223" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "274 Ill. App. 3d 32", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 291593 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "37" }, { "page": "37" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/274/0032-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 563, "char_count": 11229, "ocr_confidence": 0.79, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.280817767324628e-08, "percentile": 0.38715172197297987 }, "sha256": "ff4b2c6069b4fc8ce3acc25c7cf98edeb073b29f77088a203541e89bbb2433df", "simhash": "1:8bf01ee66ec9e228", "word_count": 1801 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:46:22.265343+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ELTON MONSON, Superintendent of the Veterans Assistance Commission of Grundy County, Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE COUNTY OF GRUNDY, ILLINOIS, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE LYTTON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, Elton Monson, superintendent of the Veterans Assistance Commission of Grundy County, Illinois (VACGC), filed a mandamus action against defendant, County of Grundy, to require defendant to pay vouchers he submitted on behalf of VACGC. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted. We affirm.\nVACGC was formed in 1999 and became recognized by defendant as a local governmental unit in 2002. Plaintiff, Elton Monson, is the superintendent of VACGC. In early 2005, defendant requested a proposed budget from VACGC for fiscal year 2006, which runs from December 1, 2005, to November 30, 2006. Plaintiff submitted a proposed budget of $208,750, which was a 20% increase from the prior fiscal year. When defendant requested that VACGC decrease its proposed budget, VACGC\u2019s chairman, James Sterba, responded that its submitted budget \u201cstands as is.\u201d\nOn November 8, 2005, defendant approved the county\u2019s fiscal year 2006 budget, which included a budget of $119,999 for VACGC. VACGC depleted its approved budget in October 2006. On November 28, 2006, VACGC submitted bills and claims to defendant for repayment. In a letter dated December 11, 2006, the county administrator, Alfred Bourdelais, explained that claims submitted by VACGC on November 28, 2006, were denied, in part, because \u201cno funds are available.\u201d\nOn April 11, 2007, plaintiff filed a petition for order of mandamus against defendant seeking to require defendant, pursuant to section 2 of the Military Veterans Assistance Act (Act) (330 ILCS 45/2 (West 2006)), to pay bills, claims and vouchers submitted by VACGC to defendant during fiscal year 2006. The unpaid bills, claims and vouchers submitted by VACGC totaled $23,302.70 and consisted of attorney fees, vehicle insurance, mileage, drivers\u2019 wages, phone cards, office supplies, advertising, court filing fees, and clerk wages.\nDefendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, in part, that plaintiffs mandamus action was barred by laches. Attached to the motion to dismiss was an affidavit from Bourdelais, which stated in part:\n\u201c4. Following approval of the FY 06 budget including the revised Veterans Assistance Commission budget, the Veterans Assistance Commission of Grundy County never objected in writing to the County of Grundy regarding the approved budget.\n5. After December 1, 2005, the Veterans Assistance Commission of Grundy County never asked the county of Grundy to increase its FY 06 budget or any individual line item thereof, even though they were informed that a written request would be needed to increase the budget.\u201d\nThe trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss, finding that \u201cthere are no disputed facts\u201d and that laches applies.\nThereafter, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate judgment and/or order a rehearing because his attorney failed to provide certain affidavits to the court. Attached to the motion were affidavits from plaintiff, as well as the chairman and vice-chairman of VACGC, asserting that they (1) \u201cnever received any VACGC FY2006 Budget modification proposal from anyone from the Grundy County Board or County Administrator, Alfred Bourdelais\u201d; (2) \u201cdid not know that the VACGC FY2006 Budget figures submitted would be changed by the Grundy County Board or by the County Administrator, Alfred Bourdelais\u201d; (3) \u201cnever knew that any of the VACGC FY2006 Budget figures were changed by the Grundy County Board or by the County Administrator, Alfred Bourde-lais\u201d; and (4) \u201cnever received any notification from the Grundy County Board or County Administrator, Alfred Bourdelais, that a written request would be needed to increase the budget.\u201d\nThe trial court granted plaintiff\u2019s motion and allowed a rehearing. Following the rehearing, the trial court found that a \u201cfactual dispute does exist\u201d over when plaintiff became aware that an amount less than VACGC\u2019s proposed budget was approved by defendant for fiscal year 2006. Nevertheless, the court dismissed plaintiff\u2019s complaint, concluding that it was \u201cbrought too late.\u201d\nANALYSIS\nPlaintiff argues that the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of laches to defeat his mandamus action brought under the Act because he filed the action only four months after defendant notified him that VACGC\u2019s budget was depleted. Defendant responds that laches applies because plaintiff did not file his action until after fiscal year 2006 was over.\nThe Act was created to provide needed assistance to honorably discharged veterans, their families, and the families of deceased veterans. 330 ILCS 45/2 (West 2006). The Act authorizes the organization of veterans assistance commissions (VACs), consisting of one delegate and one alternate from each post, camp, unit, chapter and ship of each legally recognized military veterans organization within the county. 330 ILCS 45/9 (West 2006). The executive powers of each VAC are vested in an elected superintendent. 330 ILCS 45/10 (West 2006).\nSection 2 of the Act mandates that upon the recommendation of the VAC, \u201cthe county board shall provide such sums of money as may be just and necessary\u201d to assist veterans and their families. 330 ILCS 45/2 (West 2006). A VAC superintendent may seek a writ of mandamus when the county board fails to appropriate just and necessary amounts for veterans\u2019 benefits. 330 ILCS 45/2 (West 2006). The procedure for requesting and receiving veterans\u2019 benefits is as follows:\n\u201cInitially the VAC initially makes a recommendation of an amount that it believes to be appropriate under the law. The county board then acts upon that recommendation, either to approve or disapprove the recommendation. [Citation.] If the board approves the VAC\u2019s recommendation, the matter is resolved. If the board disapproves the recommendation, the VAC then has two options: it may submit a new recommendation for a different amount or the superintendent may seek judicial relief for mandamus. After listening to the views of the parties, the circuit court may issue a writ of mandamus for either the amount sought by the VAC or a different amount.\u201d Veterans Assistance Comm\u2019n v. County Board, 274 Ill. App. 3d 32, 37, 654 N.E.2d 219, 223 (1995).\nThe doctrine of laches is grounded on the principle that courts are reluctant to come to the aid of a party who knowingly slept on rights to the detriment of the other party. In re Estate of Beckhart, 371 Ill. App. 3d 1165, 1170, 864 N.E.2d 1002, 1007 (2007). In order to apply, the defense of laches requires a showing that (1) a party has exhibited an unreasonable delay in asserting a claim; and (2) the opposing party has suffered prejudice as a result of the delay. Beckhart, 371 Ill. App. 3d at 1170, 864 N.E.2d at 1007. The general rule is that a delay of six months or longer is per se unreasonable. See Bill v. Board of Education of Cicero School District 99, 351 Ill. App. 3d 47, 55, 812 N.E.2d 604, 611 (2004). The laches doctrine applies to actions at law, including petitions for mandamus. Washington v. Walker, 391 Ill. App. 3d 459, 463, 908 N.E.2d 1066, 1070 (2009); Bill, 351 Ill. App. 3d at 57-58, 812 N.E.2d at 612-13.\nWhen a plaintiff files a complaint challenging budget decisions for a fiscal year that has ended, laches applies because the plaintiff\u2019s unreasonable delay prejudices the budgeting authority. See Pace v. Regional Transportation Authority, 346 Ill. App. 3d 125, 144, 803 N.E.2d 13, 29 (2003). In Pace, the plaintiff filed a complaint on January 11, 2002, challenging budget decisions that the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) made from 1996 to 2002. The 2002 fiscal year began on January 1, 2002, and RTA rejected Pace\u2019s proposed 2002 budget on December 28, 2001. The court concluded:\n\u201cPace filed its complaint *** shortly after the 2002 fiscal year started and shortly after the RTA made the challenged budget decisions. Because Pace sued promptly, laches does not apply to the 2002 budget decisions.\nLaches does apply, however, to Pace\u2019s request for a monetary award representing subsidies that Pace alleges it should have received in the years 1996 through 2001. When Pace filed its complaint, these budget years had concluded, and, presumably, the funds at issue were no longer available. It would be highly prejudicial to require RTA to pay these \u2018back subsidies\u2019 long after these funds have become a part of the RTA\u2019s budget history. Therefore, we conclude that Pace may not recover \u2018back subsidies\u2019 for the years 1996 through 2001.\u201d Pace, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 144, 803 N.E.2d at 29-30.\nEven though Pace filed its complaint just 11 days after fiscal year 2001 ended, the court found that laches prohibited Pace from challenging RCA\u2019s 2001 budget decisions.\nHere, we find that plaintiffs unjustified delay in bringing the action prejudiced defendant. Defendant made its final fiscal year 2006 budget decisions on November 8, 2005. Plaintiff filed his mandamus action on April 11, 2007, more than 17 months after defendant approved the fiscal year 2006 budget and over 4 months after fiscal year 2006 ended. In his mandamus action, plaintiff sought to require defendant to provide additional funds to VACGC after VACGC had expended its entire fiscal year 2006 budget. However, the funds plaintiff was requesting were no longer available. To require defendant to pay VACGC\u2019s claims after its budget was exhausted and after fiscal year 2006 came to a close would be \u201chighly prejudicial.\u201d See Pace, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 144, 803 N.E.2d at 29-30.\nPlaintiff argues that laches should not apply because he alleges that he did not know that defendant reduced VACGC\u2019s proposed budget for fiscal year 2006 until after the fiscal year ended. We reject this contention. A VAC seeking appropriations under section 2 of the Military Veterans Assistance Act must make itself aware of county board decisions and respond accordingly. See Veterans Assistance Comm\u2019n, 274 Ill. App. 3d at 37, 654 N.E.2d at 223. Here, VACGC made no effort to ascertain its own budget for fiscal year 2006 or its remaining balance at any time during the year even though that information was public and readily available. See 55 ILCS 5/6 \u2014 1006 (West 2006) (county treasurer and county clerk required to keep accounting of each fund). Instead, plaintiff sat idly by and submitted claims until he was notified that he had exceeded VACGC\u2019s budget. We will not reward plaintiff for his own nonfeasance. See Demos v. Ferris-Shell Oil Co., 317 Ill. App. 3d 41, 51, 740 N.E.2d 9, 17 (2000) (\u201c \u2018nonfeasance\u2019 is the omission of an act which a person ought to do\u201d), citing Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 1054 (6th ed. 1990). We affirm the trial court\u2019s dismissal of plaintiffs complaint.\nCONCLUSION\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Grundy County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSCHMIDT and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE LYTTON" } ], "attorneys": [ "James P Stevenson (argued), of Joliet, for appellant.", "Sheldon R. Sobol, State\u2019s Attorney, of Morris (Susan O. Bates (argued), Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ELTON MONSON, Superintendent of the Veterans Assistance Commission of Grundy County, Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE COUNTY OF GRUNDY, ILLINOIS, Defendant-Appellee.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201409\u20140101\nOpinion filed October 15, 2009.\nRehearing denied November 13, 2009.\nJames P Stevenson (argued), of Joliet, for appellant.\nSheldon R. Sobol, State\u2019s Attorney, of Morris (Susan O. Bates (argued), Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "1091-01", "first_page_order": 1109, "last_page_order": 1114 }