2017 IL App (1st) 153095
FIRST DIVISION
Modified Opinion filed April 10, 2017
No. 1-15-3095
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE HARVEY ) Appeal from the
POLICE PENSION FUND, ) Circuit Court of
) Cook County.
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) No. 06 CH 15468
)
CITY OF HARVEY, an Illinois Municipal )
Corporation, ) Honorable
) Kathleen M. Pantle,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding
JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Presiding Justice Connors 1 and Justice Simon concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 The City of Harvey appeals from a circuit court order enforcing the terms of a settlement
agreement entered into between the City of Harvey and the Board of Trustees of the Harvey
Police Pension Fund. In 2006, the Board of Trustees of the Harvey Police Pension Fund filed suit
against the City of Harvey for various violations of the Illinois Pension Code. In February 2008,
the parties entered into a settlement agreement by which the City of Harvey agreed to pay the
Harvey Police Pension Fund $551,079.83 in back property taxes the City of Harvey had
collected but failed to remit. The City of Harvey also agreed, commencing with the 2006-2007
fiscal year, to annually levy a tax upon all taxable property as required in section 3-125 of the
Illinois Pension Code. The parties agreed that the circuit court would retain jurisdiction to
enforce the agreement until the back property taxes were repaid.
1
Justice Mikva, who was initially assigned to this case, has recused herself from any further participation in or
consideration of the case. Presiding Justice Connors has been assigned as the third panel member.
No. 1-15-3095
¶2 In December 2010, the Harvey Police Pension Fund filed a motion to compel
enforcement of the settlement agreement. It alleged the City of Harvey was failing to honor its
obligations under the settlement agreement. The City admitted it had outstanding obligations
under the settlement agreement but disputed the amount being claimed by the Harvey Police
Pension Fund. The City of Harvey filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the circuit
court could only enforce the provision dealing with back property taxes and not the provision
concerning the collection of taxes beginning with the 2006-2007 fiscal year. The circuit court
rejected this argument and found it could enforce the entire agreement. The court also found the
City of Harvey had failed to collect taxes beginning in 2006 but found there was a dispute as to
the amount which should have been collected.
¶3 The parties agreed to hire the actuarial firm of Foster & Foster to determine the amount
of property taxes the City of Harvey should have collected and remitted beginning in 2006. The
report was filed with the circuit court and showed what the City of Harvey should have levied
commencing in the 2006-2007 fiscal year through the 2013-2014 fiscal year. Thereafter, the City
moved for summary judgment, arguing that it owed the Harvey Police Pension Fund only the
amount listed for the 2013-2014 fiscal year and not the previous years. The circuit court rejected
this argument and entered judgment for the Pension Fund in amount of $7,334,181.88. After
additional briefing, the circuit court also awarded the Harvey Police Pension Fund attorney fees.
This timely appeal followed.
¶4 On appeal, the City of Harvey challenges the circuit court’s authority to enforce the back
property tax provision, which resulted in the majority of the money damages entered against it. It
also challenges how the circuit court calculated those damages. Finally, it challenges the award
of attorney fees in favor of the Harvey Police Pension Fund. For the reasons set forth more fully
-2
No. 1-15-3095
below, we reject the City’s arguments and affirm the judgment of the circuit court entered in
favor of the Board of Trustees of the Harvey Police Pension Fund.
¶5 JURISDICTION
¶6 On September 29, 2015, the circuit court entered a final judgment in favor of the Board
of Trustees of the Harvey Police Pension Fund and against the City of Harvey in the amount of
$7,334,181.88, plus $45,568.75 in attorney fees. On October 28, 2015, the City filed its notice of
appeal. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Article VI, Section 6 of
the Illinois Constitution, and Illinois Supreme Court Rules 301 and 303. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI,
§ 6; Ill. S. Ct. R. 301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994); Ill. S. Ct. R. 303 (eff. May 30, 2008).
¶7 BACKGROUND
¶8 This action stems from a settlement agreement entered into by Plaintiff-Appellee, Board
of Trustees of the Harvey Police Pension Board (hereinafter “the Pension Fund”), and
Defendant-Appellant, the City of Harvey (hereinafter “the City”). On August 2, 2006, the
Pension Fund filed a complaint against the City, seeking a declaratory judgment that the City
failed to levy a tax pursuant to section 3-125 of the Illinois Pension Code. On February 2, 2008,
the parties entered into a settlement agreement (hereinafter “the Settlement Agreement”), and on
February 19, 2008, the case was dismissed.
¶9 Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the City agreed to pay the Pension Fund
the sum of $551,079.83 as payment for property taxes levied and received by the City and not
remitted to the Pension Fund. The City also agreed to pay $6,404.21 in attorney fees. The
Settlement Agreement required the City to pay the Pension Fund $50,000 per month until the
sum of $551,079.83 was repaid. Additionally, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the City
agreed that beginning in the fiscal year 2006-2007, “the City shall annually levy a tax upon all
-3
No. 1-15-3095
taxable property of the City, as required in Section 3-125 of the Illinois Pension Code.” Finally,
the parties agreed that the circuit court would retain jurisdiction over the action for the purpose
of enforcing the agreement “only until the City has re-paid the Pension Fund the sum owed to it
under section A(1) of this agreement, including the attorney’s fees provided herein.”
¶ 10 On December 6, 2010, the Pension Fund filed a motion to compel enforcement of the
Settlement Agreement, alleging that the City had failed and refused to perform its obligations
under it. The motion to compel alleged that the City failed to remit approximately $494,005.84 to
the Pension Fund. On May 24, 2011, the City filed its response to the motion to compel,
admitting it owed money to the Pension Fund but denying it was the amount stated in the motion.
On May 31, 2011, the circuit court granted the Pension Fund’s motion to compel and ordered an
accounting in order to determine the exact amount owed by the City to the Pension Fund.
¶ 11 Thereafter, both parties moved for cross-summary judgment on the amount owed to the
Pension Fund. In moving for summary judgment, the City asserted, pursuant to the 2008
Settlement Agreement, the circuit court only had the authority to order the City to pay the
outstanding balance owed pursuant to section A(1) of the Settlement Agreement. Based on this
argument, the City asserted it owed only $227,812.23. The Pension Fund disagreed and asserted
in its motion for summary judgment that the City owed it money under both A(1) and A(8) of the
Settlement Agreement. The Pension Fund claimed it was entitled to $1,312,750.84. The circuit
court agreed with the Pension Fund that the City was liable under both A(1) and A(8) of the
Settlement Agreement and entered judgment in the Pension Fund’s favor on this issue. However,
the circuit court concluded there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the damages owed
under those sections, and reserved ruling on the damages issue.
-4
No. 1-15-3095
¶ 12 On June 10, 2014, the parties appeared before the circuit court and jointly agreed to hire
the actuary firm of Foster & Forster to determine the amount owed by the City. Jason Franken of
Foster & Foster performed the required actuarial calculations and issued his report (hereinafter
“the Franken Report”) on December 2, 2014. The Franken Report included a detailed actuarial
calculation of the tax levies the City should have made for each fiscal year from May 1, 2006
through April 30, 2014, as required under section A(8) of the Settlement Agreement. The
Franken Report stated that it was compiled using the calculations prescribed in the Illinois
Pension Code. The report also included the change in the Pension Code that became effective for
the May 1, 2011 fiscal year.
¶ 13 Following the issuance of the Franken Report, the City again moved for summary
judgment. In its summary judgment motion, the City argued that, pursuant to section 3-125 of the
Illinois Pension Code, the current year’s annual actuarial valuation included all amounts due to
the Pension Fund. According to this argument, the City would owe only the amount listed in the
Franken Report for the 2013-2014 year. In its response, the Pension Fund attached a letter from
Jason Franken, explaining that each fiscal year levy detailed in the Franken Report reflected the
amount the City should have collected for that year and the calculations for each successive levy
were not cumulative or inclusive of the amount which should have been collected in the previous
year. In its reply brief, the City did not challenge the levy calculation, but argued that under the
plain meaning of section 3-125 “the most recent actuarial valuation comprises the City’s total
financial obligation to the Pension Board because the valuation takes into account past liabilities
and underfunding.”
¶ 14 After hearing oral arguments from each side, the circuit court issued an order on April 3,
2015, which found that the Pension Fund was entitled to the remaining balance owed under
-5
No. 1-15-3095
section A(1) of the Settlement Agreement and prior years’ levies detailed in the Franken Report.
Thus, the circuit court entered judgment in the amount of $7,334,181.88 in favor of the Pension
Fund. The parties then briefed the issue of attorney fees and, in an order dated August 31, 2015,
the circuit court found, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, that the Pension Fund was entitled
to $38,636.25 in attorney fees. The City moved to reconsider the April 3 order, but the motion
was denied on September 29, 2015. This timely appealed followed.
¶ 15 ANALYSIS
¶ 16 The City raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the circuit court had the jurisdiction to
enter a damages award beyond the breach of section A(1) of the Settlement Agreement; (2)
whether the circuit court erred in granting the Pension Fund damages pursuant to section A(8) of
the Settlement Agreement; and (3) whether the circuit court erred in awarding attorney fees to
the Pension Fund.
¶ 17 On the first issue the City raises before this court, it argues that, pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement, the circuit court only has jurisdiction to enforce section A(1). Before the
circuit court, the City argued that the court only had jurisdiction to enforce section A(1) (and not
A(8)) based on the jurisdictional language found in section B(5) of the Settlement Agreement.
The circuit court rejected this argument and found it could enforce the entire Settlement
Agreement, including section A(8). Whether or not a circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction
is an issue this court reviews de novo. In re Estate of Ahern, 359 Ill. App. 3d 805, 809 (2005).
Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to the court’s power both to adjudicate the general issues
involved and to grant the particular relief requested. In Estate of Gebis, 186 Ill. 2d 188, 192
(1999). If the court acts to resolve questions or provide relief beyond its jurisdiction, its orders
are void. Ahern, 359 Ill. App. 3d at 809.
-6
No. 1-15-3095
¶ 18 After 30 days have elapsed from the entry of a final judgment, a trial court lacks
jurisdiction to amend or modify the judgment. Director of Insurance v. A&A Midwest
Rebuilders, Inc., 383 Ill. App. 3d 721, 722 (2008). However, an Illinois trial court possesses the
power to retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement. Id. at 723. The intent of the trial
court to retain jurisdiction may be found in an express statement of retained jurisdiction. Id. at
725. An agreement to settle litigation is considered a contract, and general contract rules will
apply. Rose v. Mavrakis, 343 Ill. App. 3d 1086, 1090 (2003). “It is well settled that when parties
agree to and insert language into a contract, the presumption is that it was done purposefully and
the language employed is to be given effect.” Fidelity National Title Insurance Co. of New York
v. Westhaven Properties Partnership, 386 Ill. App. 3d 201, 215 (2007).
¶ 19 In this case, both the Settlement Agreement and the order of dismissal entered on
February 19, 2008 expressly stated that the circuit court retained jurisdiction to enforce the
Settlement Agreement. Section B(5) of the Settlement Agreement provides: “The parties agree
that the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, shall retain jurisdiction over this
action for the purposes of enforcing the terms of this Agreement only until the City has re-paid
the Pension Fund the sum owed to it under section A(1) of this agreement, including the
attorney’s fees provided therein.” Additionally, the February 2008 order dismissing the case
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement provides: “The parties request that the Court retain
jurisdiction of this case for the sole purpose of enforcing the terms of the settlement agreement.”
¶ 20 Based on the Settlement Agreement language and the February 2008 order, the circuit
court did not err when it determined it had the jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement.
The Settlement Agreement states that the parties agree that the circuit court should retain
jurisdiction “to enforce the terms of the Agreement until the City has re-paid the Pension Fund
-7
No. 1-15-3095
the sum owed to it under section A(1) of this agreement, including the attorney’s fees provided
therein.” Based on the language agreed to by the Pension Fund and the City, the circuit court’s
jurisdiction would terminate only when both the sum under section A(1) and the attorney fees
were paid. The City admitted both to the circuit court and this court that when the Pension Fund
filed its motion to compel, the entire amount due under A(1) had not been paid. Accordingly, the
condition divesting the circuit court of jurisdiction had not occurred and the circuit court had
jurisdiction to hear the Pension Fund’s motion to compel enforcement of the Settlement
Agreement.
¶ 21 The Settlement Agreement contains no language limiting the enforcement authority of
the court to only certain sections. The February 2008 dismissal order specifically incorporates
the parties’ Settlement Agreement for the “purpose of enforcing the terms of the settlement
agreement.” The order does not contain language limiting the circuit court’s authority to only
enforce certain provisions. The language in both the Settlement Agreement and the February
2008 order expressly grants the circuit court the authority to enforce “the Agreement” and the
“terms of the Settlement Agreement.” Accordingly, the City’s argument that somehow the
language in the Settlement Agreement limited the circuit court’s authority to only enforcing
section A(1) and not A(8) has no merit.
¶ 22 The City next argues that the circuit court erred in ordering it to pay $7,033,648, which
the circuit court found to be the combined sum of the yearly taxes the City should have levied to
meet its obligations under section A(8) of the Settlement Agreement. On appeal, the City argues
that the circuit court erred in awarding this amount because such an award is contrary to its
obligation under section 5/3-125. In response, the Pension Fund asserts that circuit court's order
-8
No. 1-15-3095
is correct in its findings regarding the amount owed, because the City's obligation was controlled
by the Settlement Agreement and not section 5/3-125.
¶ 23 Based on our review of the record, we conclude the City's argument lacks merit and the
circuit court did not commit any error in awarding the Pension Fund $7,033,648 in damages.
"Settlement agreements are encouraged and should be given their full force and effect." M.H.
Detrick Co. v. Century Indem. Co., 299 Ill. App. 3d 620, 624 (1998). "A settlement agreement is
a contract, and the construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by
principles of contract law. The intent of the parties must be determined from the plain and
ordinary meaning of the language of the contract, unless the contract is ambiguous." Law Offices
of Colleen M. McLaughlin v. First Star Fin. Corp., 2011 IL App (1st) 101849, ¶ 18 (internal
citations omitted). The Settlement Agreement entered into between the Pension Fund and City
provided at paragraph A(3):
"The City agrees that in the future, any property taxes or personal property
replacement taxes levied and received by the City on behalf of the Harvey Police
Pension Fund which are assessed, collected and remitted to the City by the Cook
County Treasurer's, Collector's office, and/or the Illinois Department of Revenue
shall be paid to the Pension Fund, within thirty (30) days of the receipt by the
City."
Paragraph A(8) provided:
"Commencing with fiscal year 2006/2007, and continuing thereafter, the City
shall annually levy a tax upon all taxable property of the City, as required in §
5/3-125 of the Illinois Pension Code. The amount of tax levy shall be determined
by an enrolled actuary employed by the Illinois Department of Insurance or by an
enrolled actuary retained by the Pension Fund. The City agrees to accept the
actuarial evaluation for the purpose of the annual tax levy completed by either the
enrolled actuary employed by the Department of Insurance or the enrolled actuary
retained by the Pension Fund."
When read it conjunction with each other, it is clear that paragraph A(8) required the City to levy
a tax each fiscal year beginning with the 2006/2007 fiscal year and paragraph A(3) required the
-9
No. 1-15-3095
City to pay that tax money to the Pension Fund within 30 days. The City's argument that
"paragraph A-8 did not require the City to pay the pension Fund the amount of the levy," is
therefore contrary to the plain language of the Settlement Agreement. Equally important, the
City agreed to accept the actuarial evaluation of either an actuary employed by the Illinois
Department of Insurance or by an enrolled actuary retained by the Pension Fund for the purpose
of calculating the annual tax levy. Based on this settlement language, regardless of how section
5/3-125 would normally require a municipal entity to calculate its obligation, the City agreed to
make a levy each year beginning with the 2006/2007 fiscal year, that such levy would be
determined by either an enrolled actuary employed by the Illinois Department of Insurance or by
an enrolled actuary retained by the Pension Fund, and those funds would be forward to the
Pension Fund within 30 days of the City receiving them.
¶ 24 In an order dated, June 10, 2014, the parties agreed to hire Foster & Foster to "determine
the amount owed by the defendant to the Harvey Police Pension Fund." Eventually, Jason
Franken, an actuary of Foster & Foster, produced what the parties refer to as the "Franken
Report." After receiving this report, the Pension Fund supplied the circuit court with an affidavit
from Jason Franken which explained that he calculated the tax levy which should have been
levied, assessed, and collected by the City for each fiscal year between the 2006/2007 tax levy
year and the 2013/2014 tax levy year. He further stated that the expected City contribution for
each successive year was not cumulative or inclusive of the prior year's amount. Because the
amounts were not cumulative, the City's damages to the Board were based on adding up each
missed year. The City did not file any type of counter affidavit or seek to depose Franken. In
fact, at a hearing on the summary judgment motions, the defendant's attorney stated "we agreed
that we would be bound by those calculations."
- 10
No. 1-15-3095
¶ 25 Based on the language in the Settlement Agreement, the Franken Report, and the Franken
affidavit, we conclude that the circuit court did not err in entering summary judgment for the
Pension Fund. While section 5/3-125 may normally provide the method for a municipality to
calculate its pension obligation; by entering into the Settlement Agreement, the City agreed to
calculate its obligation in conformity with paragraphs A(3) and A(8). In entering judgment
against the City, the circuit court was merely enforcing the City's contractual obligations under
the Settlement Agreement.
¶ 26 Finally, the City argues that the circuit court erred in awarding the Pension Fund attorney
fees because it exceeded its jurisdictional authority under the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
As discussed above, the circuit court did not exceed its jurisdictional authority in enforcing the
Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, we reject this argument and affirm the award of attorney
fees in favor of the Pension Fund.
¶ 27 CONCLUSION
¶ 28 Based on the above, we affirm the circuit court’s entry of judgment in favor of the Board of
Trustees of the Harvey Police Pension Fund.
¶ 29 Affirmed.
- 11