County of Cook v. State of Illinois

OPINION

PATCHETT, J.

This cause comes on for hearing upon a claim by the Claimant for reimbursement of certain expenses paid by Cook County to Cook County Public Aid employees. Under the former statutory arrangement, Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 23, pars. 12-5, 12-18.4, and other similar statutes, the State of Illinois was to reimburse county departments of public aid for actual administrative expenses incurred in their discharge of duties in administering certain programs.

This case arose out of an award made in a case filed in the circuit court of Cook County, MerriZZ v . Druzk, 72 Ill. 5384. That case arose when certain employees of Cook County filed suit claiming that they were discriminated against because they did not receive the same benefits that other Cook County employees received. An award was ultimately made in that case to the plaintiffs. It has been an issue as to whether or not the State and County agreed on an 'indemnification agreement, which would be effective if the County did not appeal. This Court finds that if such an indemnification agreement ever existed, it has not been proven to this Court by competent evidence.

Ultimately, a factual stipulation was entered into by the Claimant and the Respondent. Pursuant' to the stipulation, the Claimant agreed to reduce its claim to $2,405,055.26. Subsequent to the filing of the stipulation, Claimant filed a motion for summary judgment. Respondent filed a motion against summary judgment, and [*145] the Claimant filed a reply to the Respondent’s motion against summary judgment. Subsequent to the filing of the Claimant’s reply, the Respondent has not filed any additional pleadings. Therefore, this Court must accept the fact that the Respondent has stipulated to the entry of a judgment in favor of the Claimant in the sum of at least $2,405,055.26.This award is further supported by the fact that a similar case was decided by this Court, County of Cook u. State (1983), 36 Ill. Ct. C1. 68. This case had a very similar factual situation.

The State continues to contest the entry of a further sum of $22,288.79, since the State claims they were attorney fees. The Court has considered the factual stipulation entered into between the parties, and they have considered the exhibits attached to the Claimant’s reply to the Respondent’s motion against summary judgment. Exhibit C-1, attached to that pleading, clearly establishes the County’s argument is correct as to the status of the sum of $22,288.79. It further appears that the factual stipulation entered into by the parties effectively eliminates any dispute on the underlying facts involved in this case.

Therefore, it is the opinion of this Court that an award should be entered in favor of the Claimant, the County of Cook, and against the Respondent, State of Illinois, in the sum of $2,405,055.26 (two million four hundred five thousand fifty five dollars and twenty six cents) pursuant to the factual stipulation entered into between the parties, and an additional award of $22,288.79 (twenty two thousand two hundred eighty eight dollars and seventy nine cents), said award to reflect the final payout pursuant to exhibit C-1 attached to the Claimant’s reply to the Respondent’s motion against summary judgment. It is so ordered.

[*146] ORDER

PATCHETT, J.

This matter coming on to be heard upon the motion of Respondent for leave to withdraw its motion to reconsider this Court’s June 22, 1987, opinion granting Claimant’s motion for summary judgment, due notice having been given the parties hereto, and the Court being fully advised in the premises;

It is hereby ordered that Respondent’s motion be, and the same is, hereby granted, and Respondent is hereby granted leave to withdraw its motion to reconsider.

s-cc-iw,85-cc-1642,

NO^. 85-cc-ii5i,85-cc-i295,85-cc-1442,

85-CC-1711,85-CC-1894,85-CC-2265,86-CC-1148,87-CC-0985,

87-CC-1141,87-CC-2902 cons.-Claimants awarded $23,168.50.)

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY et al.,

Claimants, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Opinion filed February 29,1988.

Order filed May 17,1988.

DENISE E. GALE, for Claimant Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University.

F. ANNE ZEMEK, for Claimant Board of Trustees of Community College District 508.

MITCHELL, RUSSELL & KELLY (R ONALD K. SZOPA,of counsel), for Claimant DePaul University.

D ONNA E NDERS , C A R A A. B OCIAN , J AVIER D . BRAITHWAITE, JACQUELINE THOMAS, EUREKA COLLEGE, E MANUEL MARTINEZ, D ONALD H. MOON, and TAHITI P. WEAVER, pro se, for Claimants.

[*147] NEIL F. HARTIGAN, Attorney General, for Respondent.

L APSED APPROPRIATIONS-tuition payments-state scholarship fundsclaims paid out of refunds. Several claims for tuition payments which had previously been refused on the grounds that the funds appropriated had lapsed were paid in the order of filing out of refunds which had been received by the State Scholarship Commission.

OPINION

M ONTANA, C.J.

These Claimants brought claims seeking tuition payments. Each filed a standard “lapsed appropriation” form complaint alleging that demand for payment was made to the Illinois State Scholarship Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ISSC), but the demand was refused on the grounds that the funds appropriated for the payments had lapsed. All of these claims are against fiscal year 1984 appropriations.

These claims come on to be heard following our decision in Aurora College v . State (1985), 37 Ill. Ct. C1. 321 and Roosevelt University v. State (1987), 39 Ill. Ct. C1. 161. We begin here where the latter opinion left off. In that decision we ordered the ISSC to re-examine its records to determine if it had received more refunds from the FY 84 001-69131-4475-0100 line item appropriation and to notify us if so and we would reconsider our decision. The ISSC has notified the Court that an additional $34,006.29 in refunds is available. We will now consider the claims in the order in which they were filed.

Southern Illinois University in claim number 85-CC1151 had sought, and the Respondent had agreed to, an award of $23,937.13. We previously awarded $22,934.95 leaving a balance of $1,002.18. We hereby enter an award in claim number 85-CC-1151 in the amount of [*148] $1,002.18. This award leaves a balance available of $33,004.11.

Next in time was the Board of Trustees of Community College District 508 with claim number 85- CC-1295. It sought and was entitled to $286.00. We hereby award $286.00 in claim number 85-CC-1295. This award leaves a balance of $32,718.11.

Donna Enders’ claim, number 85-CC-1442, was next. She sought and was apparently entitled to $225.00. We hereby enter an award for $225.00 in her claim, leaving a balance of $32,493.11.

Cara Bocian filed the following claim, number 85- CC-1637. She sought $2,200.00. As stated in the May 20, 1987, decision, her previously not having been paid was due to an incorrect social security number problem and she did not appear on a roster for which the school could ask payment. Having examined the departmental report compiled by the ISSC, we find she is entitled to, and we hereby enter, an award of $2,200.00. This award leaves an unexpended balance of $30,293.11.

Javier Braithwaite, claim number 85-CC-1642, was next. Mr. Braithwaite had previously been paid for halftime status but the ISSC report indicates that he was entitled to be paid for full-time status or an additional $190.00. We hereby enter an award in claim number 85- CC-1642 in the amount of $190.00. Payment of this award would leave an unspent balance of $30,103.11.

Next in time was claim number 85-CC-1711 filed by Jacqueline Thomas. As confirmed by the ISSC report on file, she is entitled to, and we hereby award her, the sum of $382.04. The unawarded balance is now $29,721.07.

DePaul University filed the following claim, number 85-CC-1894. It sought $12,258.61 but the ISSC [*149] only approved $11,525.28. There is nothing in the record to explain the difference. We hereby award DePaul University the undisputed amount, $11,525.28. Because sufficient money will be left over at the conclusion of this opinion, we will consider an award of the disputed amount if the Claimant raises an objection within 30 days of the date this decision is filed. This award leaves a balance of $18,195.79.

Eureka College’s claim was not addressed in the previous decision due to an oversight but had filed claim number 85-CC-2265 next in time. Eureka College’s claim was denied on June 22,1987, for lack of lapsed funds. Its claim was originally filed for $5,525.00but the parties stipulated that only $5,435.00 was owing. We hereby award Eureka College $5,435.00 leaving a balance of $12,760.79.

Next was claim number 86-CC-1148 filed by Emanuel Martinez. He sought $1,022.00. We are unable to determine from the record whether he is entitled to an award. Again, because there will be sufficient funds remaining at the conclusion of this opinion we will reconsider this claim. Respondent is hereby ordered to supplement its report indicating its position as to whether the Claimant is entitled to an award.

Donald H. Moon, claim number 87-CC-0985 sought an award of $205.00 which amount is supported by the record. We hereby enter an award of $205.00 in claim number 87-CC-0985. This award leaves a balance of $12,555.79.

The Board of Trustees of Community College District 508 filed its third claim, number 87-CC-1141, next in time. It sought, and the record supports, an award of $286.00. We hereby award $286.00 in claim number 87-CC-1141, leaving a balance of $12,269.79.

[*150] Last in time was claim number 87-CC-2902 filed by Tahiti P. Weaver. Like Eureka College, her claim was not addressed in the previous decision because we did not have actual knowledge of it being on file. The record supports her claim for $410.00 and we hereby enter an award in that amount.

$11,859.79 remains for any unknown claims.

ORDER

MONTANA, C.J.

This cause comes on to be heard following the Respondent’s response to our order dated February 29, 1988;

The court hereby finds after considering the Respondent’s supplement to its previously filed report that the Claimant is entitled to an award in the amount of $1,022.00. After making said award, the sum of $10,837.79 remains for any unknown claims.

It is hereby ordered that the Claimant be, and hereby is, awarded $1,022.00.