DRF Realty, Inc. v. State

Court of Claims of Illinois

DRF Realty, Inc. v. State

45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 362, 1993 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 163

CourtCourt of Claims of Illinois

DecidedApril 6, 1993

DocketNo. 93-CC-0101

StatusPublished

This text of 45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 362 (DRF Realty, Inc. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Claims of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DRF Realty, Inc. v. State, 45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 362, 1993 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 163 (Ill. Super. Ct. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Rurke, J.

Claimant DRF Realty, Incorporated (DRF) brought these claims seeking money due pursuant to a tax escalation clause in a rental agreement for property utilized by the Respondent’s Department of Employment Security (DES). In its standard lapsed appropriation form complaints, DRF alleged that it made demands for payment but the demands were refused on the grounds that the funds appropriated for such payments had lapsed. The Respondent filed stipulations agreeing to entry of awards in the full amount sought. The stipulations are now before us for approval.

The Court of Claims is not bound by such stipulations. In these cases we are unable to approve all of the stipulations for the following reason.

In La Salle National Bank v. State (1991), 43 Ill. Ct. Cl. 266, we held that payments due pursuant to tax escalation clauses in leases were current obligations of the fiscal year in which they became due. Neither party filed a copy of the lease agreement in this case so we do not know exactly when payments were due. We do know from the copies of the tax bills attached to the complaints that the bills were not payable in the fiscal years for which the Respondent provided data in its departmental reports, e.g., in 93-CC-0099, the tax bills indicate that payment was to be made in the first installment during fiscal year 1990 and the second installment was due in fiscal year 1991, but the report contains information relating to fiscal year 1989.

We are, however, able to approve the stipulation in 93-CC-0101. The bills in that case were payable by the Claimant in fiscal years 1988 and 1989 and the Respondent would have owed pursuant to the tax escalation clause during one or both of those years. From the reports in 93-CC-0099 and 0100 we see that sufficient funds lapsed to cover the obligation.

It is hereby ordered that the Claimant be, and hereby is, awarded $629.26 in claim No. 93-CC-0101; it is further ordered that the Respondent review the lease agreement to determine in which fiscal year the obligation to pay arose in 93-CC-0099 and 93-CC-0100 and file amended reports in those cases. The parties are advised that payment of any awards made in these claims will require legislative approval, so Respondent is to provide the information at the earliest possible date.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Rurke, J.

Claimant DRF Realty, Incorporated (DRF) brought these claims seeking money due pursuant to a tax escalation clause in a rental agreement for property utilized by the Respondent’s Department of Employment Security (DES). In its standard lapsed appropriation form complaints, DRF alleged that it made demands for payment but the demands were refused on the grounds that the funds appropriated for such payments had lapsed. The Respondent filed stipulations agreeing to entry of awards in the full amount sought. The stipulations are now before us for approval.

The Court of Claims is not bound by such stipulations. In these cases we are unable to approve all of the stipulations for the following reason.

In La Salle National Bank v. State (1991), 43 Ill. Ct. Cl. 266, we held that payments due pursuant to tax escalation clauses in leases were current obligations of the fiscal year in which they became due. Neither party filed a copy of the lease agreement in this case so we do not know exactly when payments were due. We do know from the copies of the tax bills attached to the complaints that the bills were not payable in the fiscal years for which the Respondent provided data in its departmental reports, e.g., in 93-CC-0099, the tax bills indicate that payment was to be made in the first installment during fiscal year 1990 and the second installment was due in fiscal year 1991, but the report contains information relating to fiscal year 1989.

We are, however, able to approve the stipulation in 93-CC-0101. The bills in that case were payable by the Claimant in fiscal years 1988 and 1989 and the Respondent would have owed pursuant to the tax escalation clause during one or both of those years. From the reports in 93-CC-0099 and 0100 we see that sufficient funds lapsed to cover the obligation.

It is hereby ordered that the Claimant be, and hereby is, awarded $629.26 in claim No. 93-CC-0101; it is further ordered that the Respondent review the lease agreement to determine in which fiscal year the obligation to pay arose in 93-CC-0099 and 93-CC-0100 and file amended reports in those cases. The parties are advised that payment of any awards made in these claims will require legislative approval, so Respondent is to provide the information at the earliest possible date.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 362, 1993 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drf-realty-inc-v-state-ilclaimsct-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack