SUPPLY, Claimant, v. ‘THE STATE OF WAY-KEN CONTRACTORS ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought interest on unpaid bills for machine repair work after the appropriation lapsed. The court dismissed the claim, holding that the Prompt Payment Act does not authorize interest on matters pending in the Court of Claims or after the agency's legal ability to pay has ended.
Statutes cited: Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 110, par. 2-619(a)(9); Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 127, par. 132.401 et seq.
Cases cited: OK Electric v. State, 84-CC-2736 (order filed September 7, 1984)
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- INTEREsT-when interest penalty is allowed on State’s bills. Payment of an interest penalty of 1% is allowed on the State’s bills unpaid after 60 days after the receipt of the bill (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 127, par. 132.401 et seq.).
- SAME-interest not allowed after agency’s ,ability to pay ends. The statute pertaining to interest on the State’s bills does not authorize interest on matters pending in the Court of Claims, and it does not authorize interest after the agency’s legal ability to pay has ended (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 127, par. 132.401 et seq.).
- L m n , APmoPruA-noNs-interest on bills denied. The Claimant was denied accrued interest on outstanding bills for which Claimant subsequently received payment pursuant to filing lapsed appropriation claims, since the ability of the State agency owing the bills to make payment , ended before the statutory obligation to pay an interest penalty commenced.
This cause comes on to be heard on the motion by the Respondent to dismiss, due notice having been given, and the Court being fully advised; The Court finds: 1. The motion at bar was brought pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill.
Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 110, par. 2-619(a)(9)). 2. Claimant filed this action as a lapsed appropriation matter and based its claim on “An Act to require prompt payments by the State of Illinois for goods and services” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 127, par. 132.401 et seg.).
[*325] 325 I
.II
3. Claimant seeks accrued interest on several i outstanding bills for machine repair work done for?the Illinois Department of Transportation. This claim is’ for interest on $2,180.30 and $24.80, the amounts of the outstanding bills, for the periods of September 7, 1983, and August 8,1983, to October 12,1984. 4. Claimant previously filed, on November 28, 1983, a claim with this Court for payment of those
. I
outstanding bills which the Department of Transporta
I
tion was no longer able to pay due to the lapsing of the appropriation. An award was made on that action, docket number 84-CC-1221, on March 20, 1984.
Claimant received payment of its award on October 12, 1984. 5. “An Act to require prompt payments . . . 9’ authorizes payment of an interest penalty of 1%on the , State’s bills unpaid after 60 days after the receipt of the bill. 6. The bills at issue herein were received by the Department of Transportation less than 60 days prior to the end of the 90-day grace period following the end of I the fiscal year and the Department’s ability to pay those I bills. After September 30 the Department was unable, I by law, to pay any bills for the prior fiscal year and any , vendors with unpaid bills had to file in the Court of Claims for payment. 7. This Court has previously ruled, in OK Electric v . State, 84-CC-2736 (order filed September 7, 1984), that “An Act to require prompt payments . . .” does not authorize interest on matters pending in the Court of Claims nor does it authorize interest after the agency’s legal ability to pay has’ ended.
I
8. The ability of the Department of Transportation
I
,
I
[*326] to pay the bills at issue herein ended before the State’s obligation to pay a 1% interest penalty began.
Wherefore, it is hereby ordered that the claim herein be, and hereby is, dismissed.