Friendship Manor, Inc. v. Wilson , 91 N.E.3d 900 ( 2017 )

2017 IL App (3d) 160391
Opinion filed October 11, 2017
_____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
2017
FRIENDSHIP MANOR, INC., an ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
Illinois Not-for-Profit Corporation, ) of the 14th Judicial Circuit,
) Rock Island County, Illinois.
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
)
v. )
)
LARRY WILSON, Not Individually But )
in His Capacity as Supervisor of Assessments ) Appeal No. 3-16-0391
for Rock Island County, Illinois, ) Circuit No. 14-MR-919
)
Defendant-Appellee, )
)
)
) Honorable
(Rock Island-Milan School District No. 41, ) Clarence M. Darrow,
Intervenor-Appellee). ) Judge, Presiding.
)
_____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE O’BRIEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Presiding Justice Holdridge and Justice Schmidt concurred in the judgment and opinion.
_____________________________________________________________________________
OPINION
¶1 The plaintiff, Friendship Manor, Inc., sought a declaration that it was qualified to receive
a general homestead exemption under section 15-175(f) of the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS
200/15-175(f) (West 2014)) for the tax year 2014 and future years. The circuit court granted
summary judgment to the defendant Larry Wilson, the supervisor of assessments, finding that
Friendship Manor was not entitled to the exemption. Friendship Manor appealed.
¶2 FACTS
¶3 Friendship Manor, Inc., is an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, with its principal place of
business located in Rock Island County, Illinois. It operates a licensed life care facility, as
defined and licensed by the Life Care Facilities Act (210 ILCS 40/1 et seq. (West 2014)). As a
life care facility, Friendship Manor contracts with the individuals to whom it provides housing,
maintenance, and nursing, medical, or personal care services. The individuals reside in private
“apartment homes” at Friendship Manor. Friendship Manor pays real estate taxes to the local
taxing authorities and allocates each of its residents a portion of the tax attributable to the
resident’s “apartment home.” If a resident qualifies for and receives a tax exemption, then
Friendship Manor reduces the resident’s share of the tax bill by an amount equal to the savings
derived from the exemption. For many years, Friendship Manor applied for and received the
general homestead exemption (35 ILCS 200/15-175 (West 2014)) and a senior citizens
homestead exemption (35 ILCS 200/15-170 (West 2014)) pursuant to the Illinois Property Tax
Code.
¶4 In 2014, Wilson, the supervisor of assessments for Rock Island County, advised
Friendship Manor that he had interpreted the general homestead exemption statute and
determined that Friendship Manor, on behalf of its qualified residents, was not entitled to a
general homestead exemption, as it did not meet the conditions for exemption under the language
of section 15-175(f) of the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/15-175(f) (West 2014)). Wilson
determined that the residents were not entitled to the homestead exemption because Friendship
Manor was not considered a cooperative.
2
¶5 On October 20, 2014, Friendship Manor filed a nonfarm property valuation assessment
complaint with the Rock Island County Board of Review. While that was pending, Friendship
Manor filed the instant complaint for declaratory relief against Wilson, seeking a declaration that
the residents had been improperly denied homestead exemptions in 2014 and a declaration that
Friendship Manor was indeed a cooperative whose residents are eligible for the homestead
exemption. Wilson filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, inter alia, that Friendship Manor lacked
standing to bring the action, the tax code had been properly applied, and Friendship Manor had
failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss.
¶6 On December 10, 2015, Rock Island-Milan School District No. 41 filed a motion to
intervene, arguing that if Friendship Manor was successful, the school district would be
financially affected by the reduced amount of real estate taxes. The motion to intervene was
granted. Thereafter, Wilson filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Friendship
Manor was not entitled to relief. Friendship Manor and the school district also filed motions for
summary judgment. The circuit court found that, whether or not Friendship Manor was
considered a cooperative, in order for a life care facility to be eligible for a general homestead
exemption under section 15-175(f) of the Property Tax Code, its residents had to have a legal or
equitable ownership in the life care facility. Since the Friendship Manor residents did not have
ownership of record in the facility, no general exemption under section 15-175 of the Property
Tax Code was warranted. Thus, the circuit court entered judgment in favor of Wilson and the
school district and against Friendship Manor. Friendship Manor appealed.
¶7 ANALYSIS
¶8 Wilson argues that the circuit court never had jurisdiction because Friendship Manor filed
a declaratory judgment complaint rather than a statutory tax objection complaint. Wilson
3
contends that the Property Tax Code is a comprehensive statute and the exclusive remedy for
real estate tax disputes. Friendship Manor argues that it filed a declaratory judgment action
because the assessor’s actions were unauthorized by law. Subject-matter jurisdiction is a
question of law that this court reviews de novo. Blount v. Stroud, 232 Ill. 2d 302, 308 (2009).
¶9 Generally, the existence of another remedy will not preclude bringing a declaratory
judgment action. But declaratory relief is unavailable in revenue cases if the statute provides an
adequate remedy. Board of Education of Park Forest-Chicago Heights School District No. 163 v.
Houlihan, 382 Ill. App. 3d 604, 609 (2008). With respect to property tax, the general rule is that
a taxpayer is limited to first exhausting administrative remedies provided by statute beginning
with the Board of Review—the remedy at law for an incorrect assessment—before seeking relief
in the circuit court. The taxpayer then has the option of either appealing to the Property Tax
Appeal Board (35 ILCS 200/16-160 (West 2014)) or filing a tax objection complaint in circuit
court (35 ILCS 200/23-15 (West 2014)). Thus, the adequate remedy at law is to pay the taxes
under protest and file a statutory objection. Millennium Park Joint Venture, LLC v. Houlihan,
241 Ill. 2d 281, 295-96 (2010).
¶ 10 Friendship Manor argues that this case falls under one of the exceptions to this rule: a
taxpayer may seek equitable relief when the tax is unauthorized by law. See Millennium Park
Joint Venture, LLC, 241 Ill. 2d at 295. Friendship Manor cites two cases, Fox v. Rosewell, 55 Ill.
App. 3d 860 (1977), and County of Knox ex rel. Masterson v. The Highlands, L.L.C., 188 Ill. 2d
546 (1999), in support of its argument. However, in Fox, the plaintiff was challenging the
constitutionality of a statute, and in County of Knox, the subject property was exempt from
zoning regulations, so declaratory relief was proper. Friendship Manor does not argue that the
4
general homestead statute was unconstitutional or that the property was exempt from taxation; it
only argues that the assessor applied the statute incorrectly.
¶ 11 We conclude that Friendship Manor was required to exhaust the administrative remedies
provided by statute, namely a tax objection with the Board of Review, before filing an action in
circuit court. Friendship Manor contends that Wilson waived the issue by not raising it as an
affirmative defense, but subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, stipulated to, or consented
to by the parties, nor can it be conferred by estoppel. KT Winneburg, LLC v. Calhoun County
Board of Review, 403 Ill. App. 3d 744, 747 (2010). Since Friendship Manor did not exhaust the
administrative remedies available, the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Therefore,
we do not have jurisdiction to review its decision. Thus, the challenged 2014 tax assessments
stand, subject to the administrative tax objection proceedings.
¶ 12 CONCLUSION
¶ 13 The appeal from the judgment of the circuit court of Rock Island County is dismissed.
¶ 14 Appeal dismissed.
5