Meyer v. Department of Public Aid

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 3rd District Appellate » 2009 » Meyer v. Department of Public Aid

State: Illinois

Court: 3rd District Appellate

Docket No: 3-07-0684 Rel

Case Date: 06/18/2009

Preview:No. 3--07--0684 _________________________________________________________________ Filed June 18, 2009 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2009 ROSALIND MEYER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit, La Salle County, Illinois,

THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AID, No. 07--SC--1376 n/k/a the Department of ) Healthcare and Family Services, ) and STREATOR HOME BUILDING ) AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, ) Honorable ) James L. Brusatte, Defendants-Appellees. ) Judge, Presiding. _________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the opinion of the court: _________________________________________________________________ The plaintiff, Rosalind Meyer, filed a two-count complaint against the defendants, the Illinois Department of Public Aid (Department) and Streator Home Building and Loan Association (Streator), arguing that: (1) the Department should partially reimburse her for her expenses in maintaining and selling the property on which it held a lien; and (2) Streator breached its fiduciary duty to the plaintiff when it unilaterally disbursed money held in escrow to satisfy the Department's lien. The

plaintiff later filed a motion for leave to file the complaint against the Department as a class action suit. The defendants each

filed motions to dismiss the complaint, and the circuit court

granted their motions, finding that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction for the claim against the Department and that the claim against Streator was not ripe. The plaintiff appeals,

arguing that: (1) the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction for the claim against the Department; (2) the Department was obligated to reimburse her for her expenses in preserving and selling the property on which it held a lien; (3) Streator breached its fiduciary duty to the plaintiff by conversion when it unilaterally disbursed money held in escrow to satisfy the Department's lien; and (4) if the matter is reversed against the Department, the action against it should be certified as a class action and she should be the class representative. remand. FACTS On June 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a two-count complaint against the defendants, arguing that: (1) the Department should partially reimburse her for her expenses in maintaining and selling the property on which it held a lien; and (2) Streator breached its fiduciary duty to the plaintiff by conversion when it unilaterally disbursed money held in escrow to satisfy the Department's lien. The plaintiff inherited her mother's house when her mother died on April 20, 2005. The Department claimed a lien for We affirm and

$13,072.39 on the house because it provided the plaintiff's mother with public aid during her lifetime. The plaintiff attempted to sell the house from April 20, 2005,

2

to March 23, 2007, the date of the sale.

She alleged that she

expended $2,732.04 to maintain the property and $2,692.25 in closing costs. The Department did not contribute any money for the

maintenance or sale of the property. The plaintiff sold the house to a purchaser who funded the purchase with a mortgage from Streator. The plaintiff alleged that

she notified Streator at the closing that she intended to seek a contribution from the Department for the expenses she incurred in maintaining and selling the house. She requested that Streator not

disburse the money until the dispute between her and the Department was resolved, and she alleged that Streator entered into a fiduciary relationship with her when it agreed to hold the money. The "Statement of Sale" attached to the complaint stated, "State of Illinois disbursement may be subject to a lesser amount, if so, balance to seller would increase by that difference." The plaintiff further alleged that she kept Streator advised of her negotiations with the Department between March 23, 2007, and June 7, 2007. However, on June 7, Streator, without her consent,

sent the Department $13,072.39, the amount of its claimed lien. Streator sent the plaintiff the balance of the money that it held. On July 17, 2007, both defendants filed motions to dismiss. The Department argued that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim against it because the plaintiff sought a monetary judgment against the State and such claims must be brought in the Court of Claims. Streator argued that the

3

complaint failed to state a cause of action because it, as lender in a real estate transaction, had no fiduciary obligation to the plaintiff, as seller in that transaction. On August 24, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file the complaint against the Department as a class action. The

plaintiff believed that there were many individuals who, like her, sought reimbursement from the Department for expenses incurred while maintaining an asset on which the Department held a lien for benefits given to an aid recipient. On August 27, 2007, the circuit court held a hearing on the defendants' motions. The circuit court dismissed the plaintiff's

claim against the Department with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. circuit court dismissed the claim against Streator without prejudice, finding that it was not ripe for adjudication because it was dependent on the outcome of the dispute between the plaintiff and the Department. The plaintiff appeals. ANALYSIS I. Claim Against the Department On appeal, the plaintiff first argues that the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear her claim against the Department. The Illinois Constitution of 1970 abolished sovereign immunity but gave the legislature the authority to reinstate it. Ill. The

4

Const. 1970, art. XIII,

Download Meyer v. Department of Public Aid.pdf