COUNTY OF ST: CLAIR, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
The County of St. Clair claimed $953.01 for an unpaid obligation from Fiscal Year 1983, but the court dismissed the claim because sufficient appropriated funds were not available due to contingency reserves authorized by the Emergency Budget Act. The court also denied a motion for rehearing as moot.
Statutes cited: P.A. 82-1038
Cases cited: Warrior v. Thompson (1983), 96 Ill. 2d 1, 449 N.E.2d 53; Royal Glove Insurance Company v. Aetna Insurance Company, 82 Ill. App. 3d 1003, 403 N.E.2d 680; Midwest Petroleum Marketer Association v. City of Chicago, 82 Ill. App. 3d 494, 402 N.E.2d 709; Simpson v. Miller, 93 F.D.R. 540; Berg v. City of Chicago, 97 Ill. App. 2d 410, 240 N.E.2d 344; Clyde Savings & Loan v. May Department Stores, 100 Ill. App. 3d 189, 426 N.E.2d 955
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- PRACTICE AND P~ocEDuRE-actual controversy required before Court of Claim must make decision. An actual controversy is required before the Court of Claims will decide a case, and the mere claim for declaratory relief does not keep an otherwise moot claim alive, since the declaratory judgment procedure is not intended to permit litigation of moot issues.
- APPROPRlATIoNs-money must be appropriated to be expended.
- SAME-appropriation reduced-through “contingency reseroes”-chim denied. The Court of Claims dismissed Claimant’s action seeking payment of an amount due from the State, since the legislature decided that the funds which had previously been appropriated for the claim should be reduced through the device known as “contingency reserves” as provided -in the Emergency Budget Act, therefore no funds were available to pay the claim, and monies must be appropriated before they can be expended.
This cause comes on to be heard on motion of the Respondent to asmiss the Claimant’s claim of $953.01 due to the fact that sufficient appropriated funds were not available at the end of Fiscal Year 1983 to pay this claim.
Respondent urges us that this expenditure is subject to the ordinary restriction that public monies must be appropriated by the General Assembly in order to be expended.
The instant case arises because the General Assembly legislated that the funds previously approp[*298]riated be reduced through a device known as “contingency reserves.” This authorization is contained in the Emergency Budget Act (P.A. 82-1038, approved December, 1982).
The Act withstood vigorous constitutional attack by a divided Supreme Court of Illinois in Warrior v.
Thompson (1983), 96 Ill. 2d 1,449 N.E.2d 53.
The specific legislative intent (i.e. to “reserve” appropriations) being easily ascertainable, this Court has no alternative but to deny the claim.
Claimant, subsequent to Respondent’s motion, filed its motion to amend complaint. Because of the disposition of Respondent’s motion, Claimant’s motion is moot.
It is therefore ordered that the claim be dismissed, with prejudice.
ORDER ON REHEARING
RAUCCI, J. This cause having come for consideration on the Respondent’s objection to Claimant’s motion for rehearing and the Court being duly advised in the premises:
Finds, that the Claimant is asking for a rehearing on a matter which is already moot. Claimant asks that this Court decide the “merits” of this case. However, in order for the Court to decide this case there is need for an actual controversy. (Royal Glove Insurance Company v. Aetna Insurance Company, 82 Ill. App. 3d 1003, 403 N.E.2d 680; Midwest Petroleum Marketer Association v. City of Chicago, 82 Ill. App. 3d 494, 402 N.E.2d 709.) Furthermore, a claim for declaratory relief, [*299] standing alone, does not keep an otherwise moot claim alive. (Simpson v. Miller, 93 F.D.R. 540.) A moot case can not support an entry of declaratory judgment with regard to future rights. (Berg v. City of Chicago, 97 Ill.
App. 2d 410, 240 N.E.2d 344.) Declaratory judgment procedure is not intended to permit litigation of moot or hypothetical cases. Clyde Savings & Loan v. May Department Stores, 100 Ill. App. 3d 189,426 N.E.2d 955.
It is hereby ordered, that as this case has been decided, and the issue is moot, the motion for rehearing is denied.