No. 3-09-0101
______________________________________________________________________________
Filed October 15, 2009
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
A.D., 2009
ELTON MONSON, Superintendent ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
of the Veterans Assistance ) of the 13th Judicial Circuit
Commission of Grundy County, ) Grundy County, Illinois
Illinois, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
) No. 07-MR-16
v. )
)
THE COUNTY OF GRUNDY, )
ILLINOIS, a Local Government )
Body, ) Honorable
) Robert C. Marsaglia,
Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge, Presiding,
_________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff, Elton Monson, Superintendent of the Veterans
Assistance Commission of Grundy County, Illinois (VACGC), filed a
mandamus action against defendant, County of Grundy, to require
defendant to pay vouchers he submitted on behalf of VACGC.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted.
We affirm.
VACGC was formed in 1999 and became recognized by defendant as
a local governmental unit in 2002. Plaintiff, Elton Monson, is the
superintendent of VACGC. In early 2005, defendant requested a
proposed budget from VACGC for fiscal year 2006, which runs from
December 1, 2005, to November 30, 2006. Plaintiff submitted a
proposed budget of $208,750, which was a 20% increase from the
prior fiscal year. When defendant requested that VACGC decrease
its proposed budget, VACGC’s chairman, James Sterba, responded that
its submitted budget "stands as is."
On November 8, 2005, defendant approved the county’s fiscal
year 2006 budget, which included a budget of $119,999 for VACGC.
VACGC depleted its approved budget in October 2006. On November
28, 2006, VACGC submitted bills and claims to defendant for
repayment. In a letter dated December 11, 2006, the county
administrator, Alfred Bourdelais, explained that claims submitted
by VACGC on November 28, 2006, were denied, in part, because "no
funds are available."
On April 11, 2007, plaintiff filed a petition for order of
mandamus against defendant seeking to require defendant, pursuant
to section 2 of the Military Veterans Assistance Act (Act) (330
ILCS 45/2 (West 2006)), to pay bills, claims and vouchers submitted
by VACGC to defendant during fiscal year 2006. The unpaid bills,
claims and vouchers submitted by VACGC totaled $23,302.70 and
consisted of attorney fees, vehicle insurance, mileage, drivers’
wages, phone cards, office supplies, advertising, court filing
fees, and clerk wages.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, in part, that
plaintiff’s mandamus action was barred by laches. Attached to the
motion to dismiss was an affidavit from Bourdelais, which stated in
part:
"4. Following approval of the FY 06 budget including
2
the revised Veterans Assistance Commission budget, the
Veterans Assistance Commission of Grundy County never
objected in writing to the County of Grundy regarding the
approved budget.
5. After December 1, 2005, the Veterans Assistance
Commission of Grundy County never asked the county of
Grundy to increase its FY 06 budget or any individual
line item thereof, even though they were informed that a
written request would be needed to increase the budget."
The trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that
"there are no disputed facts" and that laches applies.
Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate judgment and/or
order a rehearing because his attorney failed to provide certain
affidavits to the court. Attached to the motion were affidavits
from plaintiff, as well as the chairman and vice-chairman of VACGC,
asserting that they (1) "never received any VACGC FY2006 Budget
modification proposal from anyone from the Grundy County Board or
County Administrator, Alfred Bourdelais"; (2) "did not know that
the VACGC FY2006 Budget figures submitted would be changed by the
Grundy County Board or by the County Administrator, Alfred
Bourdelais"; (3) "never knew that any of the VACGC FY2006 Budget
figures were changed by the Grundy County Board or by the County
Administrator, Alfred Bourdelais"; and (4) "never received any
notification from the Grundy County Board or County Administrator,
Alfred Bourdelais, that a written request would be needed to
increase the budget."
3
The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion and allowed a
rehearing. Following the rehearing, the trial court found that a
"factual dispute does exist" over when plaintiff became aware that
an amount less than VACGC’s proposed budget was approved by
defendant for fiscal year 2006. Nevertheless, the court dismissed
plaintiff’s complaint, concluding that it was "brought too late."
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in applying the
doctrine of laches to defeat his mandamus action brought under the
Act because he filed the action only four months after defendant
notified him that VACGC’s budget was depleted. Defendant responds
that laches applies because plaintiff did not file his action until
after fiscal year 2006 was over.
The Act was created to provide needed assistance to honorably
discharged veterans, their families, and the families of deceased
veterans. 330 ILCS 45/2 (West 2006). The Act authorizes the
organization of veterans assistance commissions (VACs), consisting
of one delegate and one alternate from each post, camp, unit,
chapter and ship of each legally recognized military veterans
organization within the county. 330 ILCS 45/9 (West 2006). The
executive powers of each VAC are vested in an elected
superintendent. 330 ILCS 45/10 (West 2006).
Section 2 of the Act mandates that upon the recommendation of
the VAC, "the county board shall provide such sums of money as may
be just and necessary" to assist veterans and their families. 330
ILCS 45/2 (West 2006). A VAC superintendent may seek a writ of
4
mandamus when the county board fails to appropriate just and
necessary amounts for veterans’ benefits. 330 ILCS 45/2 (West
2006). The procedure for requesting and receiving veterans’
benefits is as follows:
"Initially the VAC initially makes a recommendation of an
amount that it believes to be appropriate under the law.
The county board then acts upon that recommendation,
either to approve or disapprove the recommendation.
[Citation.] If the board approves the VAC’s
recommendation, the matter is resolved. If the board
disapproves the recommendation, the VAC then has two
options: it may submit a new recommendation for a
different amount or the superintendent may seek judicial
relief for mandamus. After listening to the views of the
parties, the circuit court may issue a writ of mandamus
for either the amount sought by the VAC or a different
amount." Veterans Assistance Comm’n v. County Board, 274
Ill. App. 3d 32, 37, 654 N.E.2d 219, 223 (1995).
The doctrine of laches is grounded on the principle that
courts are reluctant to come to the aid of a party who knowingly
slept on rights to the detriment of the other party. In re Estate
of Beckhart, 371 Ill. App. 3d 1165, 1170, 864 N.E.2d 1002, 1007
(2007). In order to apply, the defense of laches requires a
showing that (1) a party has exhibited an unreasonable delay in
asserting a claim; and (2) the opposing party has suffered
prejudice as a result of the delay. Beckhart, 371 Ill. App. 3d at
5
1170, 864 N.E.2d at 1007. The general rule is that a delay of six
months or longer is per se unreasonable. See Bill v. Board of
Education of Cicero School District 99, 351 Ill. App. 3d 47, 55,
812 N.E.2d 604, 611 (2004). The laches doctrine applies to actions
at law, including petitions for mandamus. Washington v. Walker,
391 Ill. App. 3d 459, 463, 908 N.E.2d 1066, 1070 (2009); Bill, 351
Ill. App. at 57-58, 812 N.E.2d at 612-13.
When a plaintiff files a complaint challenging budget
decisions for a fiscal year that has ended, laches applies because
the plaintiff’s unreasonable delay prejudices the budgeting
authority. See Pace v. Regional Transportation Authority, 346 Ill.
App. 3d 125, 144, 803 N.E.2d 13, 29 (2003). In Pace, the plaintiff
filed a complaint on January 11, 2002, challenging budget decisions
that the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) made from 1996 to
2002. The 2002 fiscal year began on January 1, 2002, and RTA
rejected Pace’s proposed 2002 budget on December 28, 2001. The
court concluded:
"Pace filed its complaint *** shortly after the 2002
fiscal year started and shortly after the RTA made the
challenged budget decisions. Because Pace sued promptly,
laches does not apply to the 2002 budget decisions.
Laches does apply, however, to Pace’s request for a
monetary award representing subsidies that Pace alleges
it should have received in the years 1996 through 2001.
When Pace filed its complaint, these budget years had
concluded, and, presumably, the funds at issue were no
6
longer available. It would be highly prejudicial to
require RTA to pay these 'back subsidies’ long after
these funds have become a part of the RTA’s budget
history. Therefore, we conclude that Pace may not
recover 'back subsidies’ for the years 1996 through
2001." Pace, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 144, 803 N.E.2d at 29-
30.
Even though Pace filed its complaint just 11 days after Fiscal Year
2001 ended, the court found that laches prohibited Pace from
challenging RCA’s 2001 budget decisions.
Here, we find that plaintiff’s unjustified delay in bringing
the action prejudiced defendant. Defendant made its final fiscal
year 2006 budget decisions on November 8, 2005. Plaintiff filed
his mandamus action on April 11, 2007, more than 17 months after
defendant approved the fiscal year 2006 budget and over 4 months
after fiscal year 2006 ended. In his mandamus action, plaintiff
sought to require defendant to provide additional funds to VACGC
after VACGC had expended its entire fiscal year 2006 budget.
However, the funds plaintiff was requesting were no longer
available. To require defendant to pay VACGC’s claims after its
budget was exhausted and after fiscal year 2006 came to a close
would be "highly prejudicial." See Pace, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 144,
803 N.E.2d at 29-30.
Plaintiff argues that laches should not apply because he
alleges that he did not know that defendant reduced VACGC’s
proposed budget for fiscal year 2006 until after the fiscal year
7
ended. We reject this contention. A VAC seeking appropriations
under section 2 of the Military Veterans Assistance Act must make
itself aware of county board decisions and respond accordingly.
See Veterans Assistance Comm’n, 274 Ill. App. 3d at 37, 654 N.E.2d
at 223. Here, VACGC made no effort to ascertain its own budget for
fiscal year 2006 or its remaining balance at any time during the
year even though that information was public and readily available.
See 55 ILCS 5/6-1006 (West 2006) (county treasurer and county clerk
required to keep accounting of each fund). Instead, plaintiff sat
idly by and submitted claims until he was notified that he had
exceeded VACGC’s budget. We will not reward plaintiff for his own
nonfeasance. See Demos v. Ferris-Shell Oil Co., 317 Ill. App. 3d
41, 51, 740 N.E.2d 9, 17 (2000) ("’nonfeasance’ is the omission of
an act which a person ought to do"), citing Black’s Law Dictionary
1054 (6th ed. 1990). We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of
plaintiff’s complaint.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the circuit court of Grundy County is
affirmed.
Affirmed.
SCHMIDT and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.
8