dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion on the merits of the intervention issue. I write separately for two reasons. First, I agree in general with the majority that the Code of Civil Procedure, rather than the Property Tax Code, applies to intervention petitions in real estate tax objection cases, but for different reasons. Second, I would affirm the circuit court’s order denying the petitions to intervene because petitioners have failed to state a basis for intervention under section 2 — 408 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 — 408 (West 2002)).
Unlike the majority, I find no support for intervention in the Property Tax Code. The majority states: “the Property Tax Code permits additional parties to participate in tax objection proceedings in circuit court. They may do so through either joinder or intervention.” 227 Ill. 2d at 479. To the contrary, section 23 — 15 of the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/23 — 15 (West 2002)) only references “[jjoinder of plaintiffs.” Joinder of plaintiffs and intervention are two distinct procedural mechanisms. See 735 ILCS 5/2 — 204, 2 — 208 (West 2002). The Property Tax Code does not refer to intervention. I therefore disagree with the majority’s statement that the Property Tax Code permits intervention.
Nevertheless, section 1 — 108(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides the answer:
“In proceedings in which the procedure is regulated by statutes other than those contained in this Act, such other statutes control to the extent to which they regulate procedure but Article II of this Act applies to matters of procedure not regulated by such other statutes.” (Emphasis added.) 735 ILCS 5/1 — 108(b) (West 2002).
Accordingly, absent a regulatory procedure in the Property Tax Code, section 1 — 108(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure triggers section 2 — 408 of the Code of Civil Procedure on intervention in real estate tax objection cases.
Despite section 2 — 408’s application in real estate tax objection cases, I disagree with the majority that the denial of the petitions to intervene must be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to hold a hearing on the intervention petitions under section 2 — 408 (735 ILCS 5/2 — 408 (West 2002)). The record in this case shows that the parties and the petitioners filed exhaustive briefs addressing the adequacy of the petitions to intervene in the circuit court. During the hearing on the petitions to intervene, the circuit court indicated any decision on whether the petitions adequately plead facts to intervene would be determined on the pleadings and briefs if the court’s ruling should ultimately be reversed. No additional hearing on this issue was contemplated. None of the parties voiced objections or asked to be heard on the issue. Moreover, the issue has been fully briefed before this court. Therefore, I see no reason this court should not address the issue, particularly since this court may affirm the circuit court’s judgment on any basis contained in the record. Leonardi v. Loyola University of Chicago, 168 Ill. 2d 83, 97 (1995) (“As a reviewing court, we can sustain the decision of a lower court on any grounds which are called for by the record, regardless of whether the lower court relied on those grounds and regardless of whether the lower court’s reasoning was correct”).
In my view, the petitions to intervene do not adequately allege a basis for intervention under section 2 — 408(a). Section 2 — 408(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure states:
“Intervention, (a) Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted as of right to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the representation of the applicant’s interest by existing parties is or may be inadequate and the applicant will or may be bound by an order or judgment in the action; or (3) when the applicant is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody or subject to the control or disposition of the court or a court officer.” 735 ILCS 5/2 — 408(a) (West 2002).
First, section 2 — 408(a)(1) is inapplicable here because no statute confers an unconditional right to intervene in real estate tax objection cases. Next, to state a basis for intervention under section 2 — 408(a)(2), petitioners were required to allege specific facts demonstrating that the State’s Attorney’s representation is or may be inadequate and to allege specific facts showing that the petitioners will or may be bound by an order or judgment in the real estate tax objection case. The petitions allege that “[t]he State’s Attorney’s Office devotes 17 to 18 assistant [Sjtate’s [Attorneys to its Real Estate Tax Division,” and that “[o]n average, each assistant must handle over 300 specific objection cases in addition to their share of the tax appeals filed before the Property Tax Appeal Board and in addition to their other civil property tax caseload.” The petitions also allege that “[t]he sheer volume of the State’s Attorney’s caseload” combined with “the magnitude of the property tax refunds during the past two years ($382.0 million) and the magnitude of the Petitioners’ interest (70% of every refunded tax dollar) leads inexorably to the conclusion that the State’s Attorney’s representation of the Petitioners’ interest in this matter is or may be inadequate.” (Emphasis in original.) The petitioners’ allegations of attorney caseload are insufficient to support grounds for intervention under section 2 — 409(2). Allegations of attorney caseload do not “lead inexorably to the conclusion” that the State’s Attorney’s representation in this case will or may be inadequate. On their face, the petitions are legally insufficient to meet the intervention requirements of section 2 — 408(a)(2).
The petitions further allege mere conclusions that “[o]n information and belief, the State’s Attorney’s Office lacks the financial resources to obtain appraisal reports in defense of the current assessment on all but a small percentage of tax objection complaints filed each year.” The petitions do not allege specific facts to support this contention.
In fact, in its response to the petitions to intervene, the Cook County State’s Attorney, on behalf of the county collector, denied each allegation offered by the petitioners in support of the petition to intervene “insofar as those allegations aver that the State’s Attorney lacks the requisite resources, both in terms of professional staffing and evidentiary appraisal resources, to conduct the adequate representation of the several defendant interests in this case.” Without more, petitioners only offered conclusory allegations. Petitioners have, therefore, failed to state a basis for intervention under section 2 — 408(a)(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The petitions also do not sufficiently allege a basis for intervention under section 2 — 408(a)(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under subsection (a)(3), petitioners were required to allege specific facts showing that they are “so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody or subject to the control or disposition of the court.” 735 ILCS 5/2 — 408(a)(3) (West 2002).
The petitions allege a portion of petitioners’ revenue is generated from real estate taxes collected by the Cook County treasurer and that refunds of property tax revenues are paid by the county treasurer from a taxing district’s current collections. To the extent the subject properties’ assessed values are reduced, petitioners allege they “will suffer a combined direct revenue loss of $.70 for every dollar refunded to the property owner[s].” Any such loss “directly reduces the revenue that is available to the City to provide City services” and “reduces the programs and educational opportunities the Board of Education is able to offer the children of the City of Chicago.” The petitions conclude, “[t]he petitioners are so situated as to be adversely affected by any settlement or trial of this action that calls for any reduction in the assessed value of the subject property.”
Those allegations are insufficient to satisfy the subsection (a)(3) requirements. If the circuit court ultimately determines that the plaintiffs’ properties are overassessed, it may direct the county collector to distribute a refund to plaintiffs, and any refund “shall be made *** from the next funds collected after entry of the final order until full payment of the refund and interest thereon has been made.” 35 ILCS 200/23 — 20 (West 2002). Although the circuit court potentially could require the tax collector to use future funds collected, it does not provide a sufficient basis to demonstrate that petitioners will be adversely affected. Taxing district revenue is not derived from assessments, but from levies and the corresponding rates. See People ex rel. Ingram v. Wasson Coal Co., 403 Ill. 30, 36 (1949) (the amount of tax extended upon any assessment is not determined by the amount of the assessment, but by the demands of the local taxing authorities). A refund suit, after the tax payment and distribution, avoids injunctions against collection and disruption to taxing district revenues while the taxpayers’ claims are litigated. See Clarendon Associates v. Korzen, 56 Ill. 2d 101, 108 (1973). Thus, the petitions fail to allege specific facts pursuant to section 2 — 408(a)(3), indicating how petitioners are so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody, or subject to the control or disposition, of the court or a court officer.
Additionally, petitioners have failed to present any petition or motion, as required by section 2 — 408(e). Section 2 — 408(e) requires a petition for intervention be accompanied by the initial pleading or motion for proposed filing. See 735 ILCS 5/2 — 408(e) (West 2002). Here, petitioners filed a “response” to each assessment objection complaint and an accompanying brief seeking increased assessments. The Property Tax Code does not provide for petitioners seeking to intervene to file a response or to request an assessment increase. Accordingly, petitioners have not complied with section 2 — 408(e).
For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the circuit court’s order denying the petitions to intervene. I therefore respectfully dissent.