Michael Munson v. State of Illinois

OPINION

ANTOLEC, J.

On June 3, 2002, the Illinois State Police (ISP) District 17 Drug Task Force carried out a search warrant of Claimant Michael Munson’s two businesses: Ottawa Glass and M&M Adult Video. The warrant was filed earlier that day after the Morris Police Department and Chicago Police Organized Crime Division notified ISP District 17 Drug Task Force that Claimant had been arrested with about one kilogram of cocaine and charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.

The ISP District 17 Drug Task force had been conducting a narcotics related investigation into Claimant since July 1998, which is when two men arrested by the Ottawa Police Department stated Claimant gave them $23,000 as part of a drug transaction. During the investigation, Claimant’s wife informed the Ottawa Police Department and the ISP Drug Task Force that Claimant had been selling cocaine and used his various businesses in drug transactions.

Upon carrying out the search warrant at Ottawa Glass, various items were seized as evidence from two safes inside Ottawa Glass. Among the items seized were 155 silver coins. In the State of Illinois Notice/Inventory of Seized Property, the coins were valued at $790 according to the ISP.

Both parties stipulated that on June 3, 2002, the ISP seized 155 silver coins from a safe belonging to Claimant Michael Munson and that these coins, which were in the possession of the ISP, are missing. The parties further stipulated that Claimant’s retained expert numismatic witness, Charles I. Carmona, is qualified to testify as an expert in the field of numismatics and coin value.

At the hearing held on March 21, 2002, Claimant testified that as a coin collector he understands the difference between circulated and uncirculated coins and that the missing coins were in uncirculated condition. The report prepared by Mr. Carmona was based solely on a list prepared by Claimant’s mother that described 121 of the 155 lost coins. Claimant recalled his father reading the coin dates out loud as his mother was writing them down on the paper. His parents made the list before depositing the coins in a safe deposit box. Mr. Carmona’s report indicated that based on the 121 coins as described in the list, the “total range of values for the 155 Morgan Dollar coins of uncirculated condition is estimated to be between a minimum of $462,503 and a maximum of $18,796,312.”

[*236] Mr. Carmona’s report states that since he never saw the coins, his appraisal value “are based on the first extraordinary assumption that the coins … were uncirculated and in perfect condition (as far as [Claimant] could tell).” He further states in the report, “[t]he second extraordinary assumption is that the coins were uncirculated and would have fallen within the definition by PCGS standards, namely from MS-60 to MS-67+.”

At the hearing Claimant testified that his father had given his son an 1890 Morgan silver dollar that was appraised with an MS-64 classification. The appraisal documentation for the 1890 Morgan silver dollar was not offered into evidence. According to Claimant, the coins that were missing were all in better condition than his son’s 1890 Morgan silver dollar.

Respondent acknowledges the ISP losing Claimant’s silver coins but states that without physically seeing the coins or an appraisal of the coins, it is impossible to determine the true value of the coins which varies greatly depending on the condition. Claimant counters that the reason that the coins are not available to evaluate is because the ISP lost them.

At the close of the hearing, both parties were allowed to submit written closing arguments. In its closing argument, the Respondent, for the first time ever, raised a statute of limitations affirmative defense under 705 ILCS 505/22 (h), which states that “any claim involving personal property must be filed within two years after the claim first accrues.” Respondent argues that this cause of action in Claimant’s complaint accrued well before two years prior to February 8, 2018, which is when Claimant filed this complaint.

Analysis

I. Respondent did not waive the statute of limitations affirmative defense.

We first turn to Respondent’s asserted statute of limitations defense based on 705 ILCS 505/22 (h). Even though Respondent did not raise this defense until after the hearing, it is well settled that the statutes of limitations are jurisdictional and cannot be waived. See Klopfer v. State, 46 Ill.Ct.Cl. 4 (1993) (emphasis supplied). Claimant acknowledges this in his written Closing Argument Regarding Statute of Limitations. 8

Nonetheless, Claimant argues that the statute of limitations is not an issue because he “secured stipulations that there was no statute of limitations violation.” However, none of the thirteen stipulations entered between Claimant and Respondent state the statute of limitations was not violated. The stipulations simply establish that Respondent was responsible for the loss of Claimant’s coins and establish that Respondent was responsible for the loss of Claimant's coins and establish a timeline that helps determining whether the statute of limitations was violated.

See Claimant’s Closing Argument Regarding Statute of Limitations, page 2 (states that “[t]he Claimant was always aware that ‘the failure to raise statutory limitation period as an affirmative defense to an action before the Court cannot result in a waiver of the issue vesting the Court of Claims with subject matter jurisdiction”).

[*237] Thus, this Court must now turn to these facts and Claimant’s and Respondent’s written arguments to determine whether Claimant’s Complaint is barred by 705ILCS 505/22 (h).

II. The two-year statute of limitations for personal property actions does

not bar Claimant’s claim.

“Under 705 ILCS 505/22 (h), any claim involving personal property must be filed within two years after the claim first accrues.” Claimant filed the instant claim on February 8, 2018. So if this claim accrues before February 8, 2016, It would be barred by 705 ILCS 505/22 (h). A cause of action accrues when the claimant knows or should have known that she is injured and that such injury may have been wrongfully caused. Doe by and Through Doe v. Montessori School of Lake Forest, 287 Ill.App.3d 289, 223 Ill. Dec. 74, 678 N.E.2d 1082 (1997).

Both parties stipulated that on November 12, 2012 (during the forfeiture proceedings), Claimant filed motion for return of all his property, which included firearms and currency in addition to the 155 silver coins. They further stipulated that he received all his property back except for the 155 coins.

Respondent argues in its written closing statement that based on these two stipulations Claimant received all his property back on the day he filed his motion for return of property except for the 155 coins and that accordingly, November 12, 2012, was the date the cause of action for the return of the coins began because that is when Claimant knew they were lost. But as Claimant explains in his response, that was not the case. The property that was returned to him was returned in a piecemeal manner between 2013 to 2014.

For that same reason, Respondent’s alternative argument, which is that the cause of action accrued on May 30, 2014, is also unavailing. Respondent relies on the stipulated fact that “On May 30, 2014, Michael Munson was made aware that the 155 silver coins could not be located by Lasalle County States’s Attorney Office.”

However, this statement alone did not give Claimant reason to know that Respondent had lost his coins because, as of May 30, 2014, Claimant had not yet received his firearms or currency either. The firearms were returned on August 7, 2014, and the currency sometime after.

Given that he had not yet received all his items when the LaSalle County State’s Attorneys Office told him they could not locate the coins, we find that on May 30, 2014, Claimant’s cause of action for the lost coins did not accrue because he did not know, or have reason to know, that Respondent had lost his coins.

That takes us to the next possible date of accrual: when Claimant filed detinue complaint in circuit court in May 2015. Claimant contends that he still did not know the coins were actually lost when he filed his detinue complaint in circuit court, where he named the following as defendants: the city of LaSalle, City of Ottawa, City Oglesby, city of Mendota, City of Streator, city of Princeton, LaSalle County, Bureau County, Putnam County, Tri-County Drug Enforcement Narcotics Team (TRI-DENT), and the Illinois State Police (ISP).

[*238] According to Claimant, only after discovery took place in the civil suit did he realize that the coins were lost by the ISP. Specifically, Claimant points to the following stipulation: “in March of 2016, the Claimant became aware that the Illinois State Police were taking the position that they could not find the 155 silver coins and that they could not be located in the Illinois State Police evidence vault.”

After Claimant found out this information, he voluntarily dismissed the other defendants and maintained his suit against the ISP in circuit court. However, the circuit court dismissed the case upon Respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Claimant appealed his ruling.

On January 4, 2018, the appellate court ruled that the Court of Claims had exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over the issue. On February 8, 2018, Claimant filed his complaint within the two-year statute of limitations.

III. Damages.

This Court repeatedly held that speculative damages cannot be awarded. The Claimant must prove his damages by preponderance of the evidence to prevail. Rivera v. State, 38 Ill.Ct.Cl. 272 (1985). The age and nature of the property must be taken into consideration in making an award. Stephenson v. State, 37 Ill.Ct.Cl. 263 (1985); Lindsey v. State, 45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 121 (1993). To prove his claim, Claimant testified, procured a numismatic expert to testify at the hearing, and produced a listing of 121 of the lost coins. The listing produced was not for all 155 coins but was for the portion of coins that was bequeathed to claimant. Additionally, the record contains an investigative report for “155 silver coins” valued at over “$800.00.” See I-CASE No: IL13AA14770, report No. 519643.

At the beginning of the hearing, Assistant Attorney General assigned to this matter stated, “The State and the Claimant have both agreed that the State did take…the [C]laimant’s coins into its possession, they were lost once in our possession and…the State is at fault at that. Right now the only thing we haven’t stipulated is to the value of those coins and replacement value of them.” (Tr. At pages 4-5). The Parties then stipulated that the ISP took possession of 155 silver coins. (Tr. at pages 5-6). Also included as part of the stipulation is that the coins were silver dollars. (Tr. at pages 49- 50). Report 495559 of the I-CASE No: IL13AA14770 lists them as “155 silver troy coins.” One document that has a page number 14 of 19 on the bottom right corner and “Munson-0121” in the left margin also states they were “U.S. Coins Seized…Troy Oz Silver Coins.” The original ISP Evidence Inventory and Receipt from when the coins were seized also refers to them as “155 one (1) Troy ounce silver coins” and they were listed as having a “legal value” of “$790.” According to page 40 of the ISP’s Investigative Report of the handling of Claimant’s coins, the coins referred to as a “box of silver coins that have a value beyond the actual face value of the coins.” Claimant’s numismatic expert’s report was also part of the stipulation based on the expert’s review of what Claimant represented to the numismatic expert.

After review of the hearing transcript and review of the record available to this Court, Respondent did not impeach or discredit Claimant’s evidence. Therefore, Claimant met his burden of demonstrating that 155 silver coins went missing in this case. In [*239] assessing an award for damages in this case, the Court considers that 34 of the claimed Morgan silver dollars have unknown years and mint marks and any estimation of their value is a guess, at best, and therefore speculative damages will not be awarded for the 34 coins. However, the currency value of the 34 silver dollar coins is $1.00 per coin. Therefore, the award for the 34 unidentified coins is $34.00 in total. The average value of 121 coins is $2,984.00 per coin based on the numismatic expert’s report and Claimant has met his burden by a preponderance of the evidence for establishing damages for 121 of the missing coins in an amount of $361,064.00

THEREFORE, Claimant’s claim is hereby granted and Claimant is awarded $361,098.00.