2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U No. 2-21-0150 Order filed March 6, 2023
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(l). ______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________
RUNJUN WANG, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Lake County. Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 19-MR-661 ) ILLINOIS PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ) BOARD, LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF ) REVIEW, and LAKE COUNTY ) TREASURER, ) Honorable ) Joseph V. Salvi, Defendants-Appellees. ) Judge Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE HUDSON delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice McLaren and Justice Jorgensen concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board’s decision to reduce the total assessed value of the subject property by $20,039 was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶2 I. INTRODUCTION
¶3 Plaintiff, Runjun Wang, appeals pro se from the judgment of the circuit court of Lake
County, which affirmed on administrative review a decision of defendant, the Illinois Property Tax
Appeal Board (PTAB). For the 2016 tax year, the PTAB reduced the total assessed value of the 2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U
subject property (which includes plaintiff’s residence) by $20,039. Plaintiff argues that the
assessed value of the subject property should have been reduced by $33,080. For the reasons set
forth below, we affirm. 1
¶4 II. BACKGROUND
¶5 We set forth the following background information to facilitate an understanding of this
appeal. The subject property is located at 5725 Hampton Drive, Long Grove, Vernon Township,
Lake County, Illinois. Plaintiff purchased the subject property in 2009 for $490,000. The subject
property is a 44,867 square-foot lot which includes a two-story, single-family dwelling of brick
exterior construction built in 1987. The dwelling contains 3692 square feet of living space with
two full bathrooms, two half bathrooms, a partially finished basement, central air conditioning, a
fireplace, and an attached garage of 792 square feet. In 2016, the subject property’s land value was
assessed at $18,569 and its improvement value was assessed at $174,680, for a total assessed value
of $193,249. Plaintiff appealed to defendant, the Lake County Board of Review (Board), seeking
a reduction of her assessment for the 2016 tax year. Following a hearing, the Board maintained the
assessed value of the land at $18,569, but reduced the assessed value of the improvement to
$168,080. Thus, the Board fixed the total assessed value of the subject property at $186,649, a
reduction of $6600. This resulted in an assessment per square foot of living area of $45.53
($168,080/3692).
1 Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Sanction and Strike” appellees’ briefs. We took the motion
with the case. In her motion, plaintiff claims that appellees’ briefs are inaccurate and incomplete
in several respects. Plaintiff argues that we should therefore strike portions of appellees’ briefs and
impose sanctions against them. Having reviewed appellees’ briefs, we deny plaintiff’s motion.
-2- 2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U
¶6 A. PTAB Proceedings
¶7 Plaintiff appealed the Board’s final assessment to the PTAB. Plaintiff did not contest the
Board’s finding of the subject property’s land assessment. However, she requested a reduction of
$33,080 (from $168,080 to $135,000) with respect to the Board’s finding of the subject property’s
improvement assessment. Given the requested reduction, the assessment per square foot of living
area would be $36.57 ($135,000/3692). Plaintiff based her appeal on evidence of “comparable
sales,” “assessment equity,” and a “contention of law.” In support of her appeal, plaintiff submitted
information on three comparable properties. Two of those properties are located in the same
neighborhood code as the subject property (as defined by the local assessor) and all three are within
four blocks of the subject property. Plaintiff’s three comparable properties are on lots ranging in
size from 20,078 to 45,738 square feet. The comparable properties are improved with two-story,
single-family dwellings of brick or wood-siding exterior construction. The dwellings have living
areas ranging from 3530 to 4250 square feet, and are from 24 to 32 years old. Features of the
comparable properties include basements (two of which have finished areas), central air
conditioning, one or two fireplaces, and garages ranging in size from 703 to 851 square feet. The
comparable properties were sold between March 2014 and July 2016 for prices ranging from
$470,000 to $580,000, or $129.83 to $139.86 per square foot of living area. The comparable
properties have improvement assessments ranging from $135,225 to $156,198, or $36.75 to $41.08
per square foot of living area. 2 In addition to the information on the comparable properties, plaintiff
2 We calculated the assessment per square foot of living area by dividing the improvement
assessment by the square feet of living area. In its final administrative decision, the PTAB
calculated that the assessment per square foot of living area for plaintiff’s three comparable
-3- 2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U
submitted photographs of portions of the subject property which, she asserted, needed repair,
photographs of the interiors of the comparable properties, and a brief contending an error in the
subject property’s assessment in 2011.
¶8 In response, the Board submitted a document entitled “Board of Review—Notes on
Appeal,” disclosing the total assessment of the subject property at $186,649. The Board also
submitted information on four equity comparable properties located within 0.6 miles of the subject
property and within the same neighborhood code as the subject property. The four equity
comparable properties are on lots ranging in size from 43,560 to 53,579 square feet. The four
equity comparable properties are improved with two-story, single-family dwellings of brick or
wood-siding exterior construction. The dwellings have living areas ranging from 3630 to 4250
square feet and were built in 1986 or 1987. The features of the four equity comparable properties
include basements (two with finished areas), central air conditioning, one to three fireplaces, and
garages ranging in size from 638 to 792 square feet of building area. The four equity comparable
properties have improvement assessments ranging from $155,716 to $175,451, or from $42.29 to
$47.78 per square foot of living area.
¶9 Additionally, the Board submitted information on four comparable property sales located
within 0.232 miles of the subject property and within the same neighborhood code as the subject
property. The sales comparable properties are on lots ranging in size from 43,560 to 45,738 square
feet and are improved with two-story, single-family dwellings of brick or wood-siding exterior
construction. The dwellings range in size from 3460 to 3699 square feet of living area and were
properties ranged from $36.15 to $38.41 per square foot. Based on the evidence of record, it is
unclear how the PTAB arrived at those figures.
-4- 2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U
constructed between 1986 and 1990. Features of the four sales comparable properties include
basements (three with finished areas), central air conditioning, one to three fireplaces, and garages
ranging in size from 750 to 932 square feet of building area. The four sales comparable properties
have improvement assessments ranging from $151,620 to $175,078, or from $43.14 to $49.51 per
square foot of living area. The four sales comparable properties were sold between August 2014
and March 2017 for prices ranging from $625,000 to $687,500 or between $168.96 and $195.53
per square foot of living area.
¶ 10 Plaintiff submitted rebuttal evidence contesting the similarities of the Board’s comparable
properties. In addition, plaintiff submitted information on additional properties not previously
submitted.
¶ 11 A hearing on plaintiff’s appeal was held on April 8, 2019, before Sasha Jonic, an
administrative law judge (ALJ) for the PTAB. Plaintiff appeared on her own behalf at the hearing
with two witnesses. John Paslawsky appeared on behalf of the Board.
¶ 12 At the hearing, plaintiff argued that the subject property is inferior to the comparable
properties due to its state of disrepair as well as the fact that it is situated in close proximity to
high-voltage electrical power lines. Plaintiff also complained that there was an erroneous entry on
the subject property’s record card. The entry in question reads “2011 add F/B, 1378 SF 1/2 bath,
and A/C.” 3 Plaintiff stated, however, that she did not “add” a finished basement, a half bath, or
air conditioning to her residence in 2011. Rather, these features existed when she purchased the
3 The subject property’s record card has several other notations, including one providing
that in 2016, the size of plaintiff’s finished basement was changed from 1378 square feet to 919
square feet.
-5- 2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U
subject property in 2009. Plaintiff contended that after the alleged erroneous entry on the subject
property’s record card, her overall taxes increased by approximately 25%, which has carried
forward to the present time and caused her taxes to increase from 2011 through 2016. Plaintiff
stated that she did not discover the “error” on the subject property’s record card until 2016 and she
did not appeal any other year’s assessment prior to 2016. Based on this evidence, plaintiff
requested a reduction in the subject property’s total assessment by 25% as well as a “refund” of
the extra taxes she paid in prior years.
¶ 13 Paslawsky testified that the only error on the subject property’s record card was the size of
the finished basement, which was duly corrected in 2016. Paslawsky also testified that the notation
on the subject property’s record card in 2011 regarding the finished basement, half bath, and air
conditioning was made after the assessor discovered that these features were on the multiple listing
service (MLS) sheet for the subject property but were not already recorded on the subject
property’s record card. Finally, Paslawsky testified that the increase in the subject property’s
overall taxes may be due to many other factors unrelated to the aforementioned entry on the subject
property’s record card.
¶ 14 Plaintiff attempted to introduce new evidence during the hearing, to which Paslawsky
objected. During the hearing, Paslawsky, on behalf of the Board, offered to reduce the subject
property’s total assessment to $166,610, and prepared a stipulation reflecting said reduction.
Plaintiff rejected the offer.
¶ 15 B. PTAB Decision
¶ 16 On May 21, 2019, the PTAB issued a final administrative decision in plaintiff’s case. At
the outset, the Board noted that plaintiff submitted rebuttal evidence (1) contesting the similarities
of the Board’s comparable properties to the subject property and (2) listing additional properties
-6- 2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U
not previously submitted. The PTAB concluded that its rules precluded plaintiff from submitting
new evidence on rebuttal. See 86 Ill. Admin. Code § 1910.66(c) (2019). Additionally, the PTAB
observed that at the hearing before the ALJ, plaintiff attempted to introduce evidentiary documents
which were not included with her original submission, to which the Board objected. The PTAB
sustained the Board’s objection, noting that its rules preclude a party to an appeal from introducing
new evidence at a hearing. See 86 Ill. Admin. Code § 1910.67(k)(1) (2017).
¶ 17 Turning to the merits, the PTAB first addressed plaintiff’s claim of an assessment inequity.
The PTAB noted that the parties submitted a total of seven suggested comparable properties for
consideration. The PTAB noted that the comparable properties had varying degrees of similarity
to the subject property. The PTAB found that plaintiff’s comparable properties one and two (the
properties that were located in the same neighborhood code as the subject property) and the
Board’s four equity comparable properties constituted the best evidence of assessment equity
because they are most similar to the subject property in location, dwelling size, lot size, design,
and features. The PTAB noted that the comparable properties have improvement assessments
ranging from $135,225 to $175,451, or from $37.35 to $47.78 per square foot of living area. The
PTAB observed that the subject property’s improvement assessment of $168,080, or $45.53 per
square foot of living area, was at the higher end of the range established by the most similar equity
comparable properties of record. After considering the error regarding the square footage of the
subject property’s finished basement and after adjustments for differences between the subject
property and the equity comparable properties, the PTAB concluded that a reduction in the subject
property’s assessment was justified due to an assessment inequity. Accordingly, the PTAB reduced
the improvement assessment on the subject property to $148,041, but maintained the assessed
-7- 2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U
value of the land at $18,569. This resulted in a total assessed value of the subject property of
$166,610, a reduction of $20,039 from the total assessed value of $186,649 fixed by the Board.
¶ 18 The PTAB also addressed plaintiff’s contention that the subject property was overvalued
based on comparable sales. The PTAB found that some of the sales comparable properties
submitted by the parties were not reflective of market value because (1) the sales dates were too
distant in time to the subject property’s assessment date of January 1, 2016, and (2) features of the
subject property and those of some of the sales comparable properties were dissimilar. The PTAB
determined that the best evidence of market value was plaintiff’s comparable number two and the
Board’s sales comparable property numbers two and four. The PTAB found that these three
properties are the most similar to the subject property in location, lot size, dwelling size, age,
design, and features. Those three properties sold between July 2015 and September 2016 for prices
ranging from $493,700 to $687,500, or $139.86 to $195.53 per square foot of living area. The
PTAB concluded that the subject property’s reduced total assessed value of $166,610, which,
according to the PTAB, reflected an estimated market value of approximately $499,880, or
$136.73 per square foot of living area, is justified considering its inferior condition when compared
to the most similar sales comparable properties and being in close proximity to high-voltage power
lines. 4 After considering the assessment reduction granted to the subject property based on equity
considerations, the PTAB found no further reduction in the subject property’s assessment was
warranted based on comparable sales.
4 Based on the PTAB’s estimate of the market value of the subject property, we calculate
the market value per square foot of living area as $135.40 ($499,880/3692).
-8- 2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U
¶ 19 Lastly, the PTAB noted that its jurisdiction is limited to accepting an appeal from a decision
of a county board of review pertaining to the assessment of real property. Thus, it had no
jurisdiction over the amount of property taxes extended from 2011 through 2015. 86 Ill. Admin.
Code § 1910.10(f) (2019) (providing that the PTAB is without jurisdiction to determine the tax
rate, the amount of a tax bill, or the exemption of real property from taxation).
¶ 20 C. Trial Court Proceedings
¶ 21 Plaintiff filed a complaint for review of the PTAB’s final administrative decision in the
circuit court of Lake County. Subsequent to filing her complaint, plaintiff filed numerous motions
in the trial court. In an order dated September 30, 2020, the trial court found that plaintiff’s prior
motions were not well grounded in fact or existing law. The court therefore enjoined plaintiff or
anyone acting on her behalf from submitting further filings in the case without first obtaining leave
of court. Additionally, while plaintiff’s case was pending in the trial court, she filed two appeals
to this court, both of which were dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Wang v. Illinois
Property Tax Appeal Board, No. 2-20-0747 (2021); Wang v. Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board,
No. 2-20-0121 (2020). Thereafter, the PTAB, the Board, and defendant Lake County Treasurer
(Treasurer) filed briefs in response to plaintiff’s complaint for administrative review. On January
19, 2021, the trial court entered an order denying plaintiff’s complaint, concluding that the final
administrative decision of the PTAB was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence or
contrary to law. In the same order, the trial court reiterated that plaintiff continuously filed motions
that had no basis in law or fact and that she continuously attempted to violate the court order
requiring her to seek leave of court for any additional filings. Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice
of appeal to this court, which, as amended, listed 16 separate circuit court orders she was appealing.
¶ 22 III. ANALYSIS
-9- 2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U
¶ 23 At the outset, we note that plaintiff is self represented. It is well established that “pro se
litigants are presumed to have full knowledge of applicable court rules and procedures and must
comply with the same rules and procedures as would be required of litigants represented by
attorneys.” JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Associates v. Jones, 2019 IL App (1st) 181909, ¶ 29;
In re Estate of Pellico, 394 Ill. App. 3d 1052, 1067 (2009). Among these rules and procedures are
those contained in Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341, which sets forth the form and content
requirements of appellate briefs. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341 (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Illinois Supreme Court Rule
341(h)(6) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) requires an appellant to provide a statement of facts “which shall
contain the facts necessary to an understanding of the case, stated accurately and fairly without
argument or comment, and with appropriate references to the pages of the record on appeal.” The
statement of facts in plaintiff’s opening brief fails to provide this court with an understanding of
the case. It consists largely of rambling statements that lack clarity. It is also riddled with
unnecessary argument and comment. We further observe that Illinois Supreme Court Rule
341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) requires an appellant to provide argument “which shall contain the
contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities *** relied
on.” In her appellate brief, plaintiff purports to raise 20 “issues.” However, it is difficult to discern
the precise nature of many of the contentions of error plaintiff purports to raise. This is principally
because plaintiff’s arguments are disorganized and consist largely of stream-of-consciousness
writings that are confusing, vague, repetitive, conclusory, and often lack citation to relevant
authority.
¶ 24 We are mindful of the challenges plaintiff faces in representing herself on appeal.
Nevertheless, compliance with Rule 341 is not an inconsequential matter. The rules of our supreme
court “are not aspirational. They are not suggestions. They have the force of law, and the
- 10 - 2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U
presumption must be that they will be obeyed and enforced as written.” Bright v. Dicke, 166 Ill.
2d 204, 210 (1995). As a reviewing court, we are entitled to have the issues clearly defined with
pertinent authority cited. McCann v. Dart, 2015 IL App (1st) 141291, ¶ 15. An appellant cannot
expect a reviewing court to develop arguments and research issues on his or her behalf. See
Northwestern Memorial Hospital v. Sharif, 2014 IL App (1st) 133008, ¶ 20. Where an appellant’s
brief fails to comply with the supreme court rules, a reviewing court has the inherent authority to
strike the brief and dismiss the appeal. Epstein v. Galuska, 362 Ill. App. 3d 36, 42 (2005). That
said, we have the benefit of a cogent appellee brief from the PTAB and another from the Board
and the Treasurer. Based on appellees’ briefs, we have been provided with the facts necessary for
an understanding of the case and can discern, generally, plaintiff’s assignments of error. Thus,
despite the deficiencies in plaintiff’s brief, we will address the merits of the PTAB’s May 21, 2019,
final administrative decision. See Twardowski v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., 321 Ill.
App. 3d 509, 511 (2001) (opting to address merits despite appellant’s failure to comply with the
supreme court rules).
¶ 25 A. Standard of Review
¶ 26 Final administrative decisions of the PTAB are subject to review under the provisions of
the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2018)). 35 ILCS 200/16-195
(West 2018). In an action for administrative review, it is the decision of the agency, rather than the
trial court, that we review. Peacock v. Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board, 339 Ill. App. 3d 1060,
1068 (2003); Brazas v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 339 Ill. App. 3d 978, 981 (2003). As such, we
are limited to considering the evidence submitted to the administrative agency and may not
consider evidence submitted to the trial court. Marconi v. Chicago Heights Police Pension Board,
225 Ill. 2d 497, 532 (2006); Lipscomb v. Housing Authority of County of Cook, 2015 IL App (1st)
- 11 - 2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U
142793, ¶ 11. Under the Administrative Review Law, judicial review of agency decisions extends
to all questions of law and fact presented by the record. 735 ILCS 5/3-110 (West 2018); Du Page
County Board of Review v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 284 Ill. App. 3d 649, 652 (1996). The
applicable standard of review depends on whether the administrative decision presents a question
of fact, a question of law, or a mixed question of fact and law. Cinkus v. Village of Stickney
Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200, 210 (2008); Wortham v. City of Chicago
Department of Administrative Hearings, 2015 IL App (1st) 131735, ¶ 13.
¶ 27 An administrative agency’s factual findings are deemed prima facie true and correct.
Du Page County Board of Review, 284 Ill. App. 3d at 652-53. Assigning weight to evidence and
assessing the credibility of witnesses is primarily for the agency hearing the matter. King v. Justice
Party, 284 Ill. App. 3d 886, 888 (1996). Therefore, in considering an agency’s factual findings, a
reviewing court does not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the agency.
Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 210. The reviewing court is limited to considering whether the agency’s
factual findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 210; Du Page
County Board of Review, 284 Ill. App. 3d at 652-53. A finding of fact is against the manifest
weight of the evidence only if an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent. Cook County Board of
Review v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 403 Ill. App. 3d 139, 143 (2010); Roti v. LTD Commodities,
355 Ill. App. 3d 1039, 1051 (2005).
¶ 28 An agency’s conclusions on questions of law, however, are not binding on a reviewing
court. Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 210. Consequently, review of legal issues is de novo. Du Page County
Board of Review, 284 Ill. App. 3d at 653. A mixed question of fact and law presents a situation in
which the historical facts are established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether
the facts satisfy the statutory standard, or, in other words, whether the rule of law as applied to the
- 12 - 2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U
established facts is or is not violated. Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 211. In addressing a mixed question of
fact and law, a reviewing court considers whether the agency’s decision is clearly erroneous.
Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 210. A decision is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 210.
¶ 29 B. The PTAB Decision
¶ 30 As noted earlier, plaintiff purports to raise 20 “issues” on appeal. Many of plaintiff’s
assignments of error concern rulings made by the trial court. As noted earlier, however, in an action
for administrative review, it is the decision of the agency, rather than the trial court, that we review.
Peacock, 339 Ill. App. 3d at 1068; Brazas, 339 Ill. App. 3d at 981.
¶ 31 With respect to the PTAB’s final administrative decision, plaintiff contends that the “root
cause” of the “erroneous increase” in the assessment of the subject property is the “false upgrade
notes added by [the] assessor in 2011.” According to plaintiff, this alleged error continued through
2016, thereby causing her property taxes to rise sharply. The PTAB’s finding of the assessed value
of a particular property is a question of fact. West Loop Associates, LLC v. Property Tax Appeal
Board, 2017 IL App (1st) 151998, ¶ 59; Kraft Foods, Inc. v. Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board,
2013 IL App (2d) 121031, ¶ 51; Du Page County Board of Review, 284 Ill. App. 3d at 653-54.
Hence, the PTAB’s decision will not be disturbed unless it is against the manifest weight of the
evidence. Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 210; Du Page County Board of Review, 284 Ill. App. 3d at 652-
53. As noted above, a finding of fact is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if an
opposite conclusion is clearly apparent. Cook County Board of Review, 403 Ill. App. 3d at 143;
Roti, 355 Ill. App. 3d at 1051.
¶ 32 Applying this deferential standard, we cannot conclude that the PTAB’s finding of the
assessed value of the subject property was against the manifest weight of the evidence. In this
- 13 - 2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U
regard, we observe that both plaintiff and the Board presented evidence of comparable properties
to support their respective property assessment claims. In addition, both parties appeared before
the PTAB’s ALJ and argued their respective positions. As such, the PTAB was required to assess
the credibility of the witnesses and weigh the evidence. King, 284 Ill. App. 3d at 888. In doing so,
the PTAB noted that the parties submitted a total of seven suggested equity comparable properties
for consideration with varying degrees of similarity to the subject property. The PTAB found that
two of plaintiff’s comparable properties and the Board’s four equity comparable properties
constituted the best evidence of assessment equity because they were the most similar to the subject
property in location, dwelling size, lot size, design, and features. The PTAB then compared the
improvement assessments on the six properties and observed that the subject property’s
improvement assessment of $168,080, or $45.53 per square foot of living area, was at the higher
end of the range established by the most similar equity comparable properties of record. After
considering the error regarding the square footage of the subject property’s finished basement and
adjusting for differences between the subject property and the comparable properties, the PTAB
concluded that a reduction in the subject property’s assessment was justified due to an assessment
inequity. To this end, the PTAB reduced the improvement assessment on the subject property to
$148,041, or $40.10 per square foot of living area ($148,041/3692). The PTAB maintained the
assessed value of the land at $18,659. The PTAB’s changes resulted in a total assessed value of
the subject property of $166,610, a reduction of $20,039 from the total assessed value fixed by the
Board. As a result of the improvement assessment fixed by the PTAB, the subject property went
from being at the higher end of the range established by the most similar comparable properties to
being at the lower end of the range. Because the PTAB articulated rational reasons for making its
decision, we cannot say that a conclusion opposite that of the PTAB is clearly apparent.
- 14 - 2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U
¶ 33 The PTAB also addressed, on alternative grounds, whether plaintiff’s property was
overvalued. The PTAB determined that the best evidence of market value was a mix of properties
consisting of one of plaintiff’s comparable properties and two of the Board’s sales comparable
properties. The PTAB found that these three properties were the most similar to the subject
property in location, lot size, dwelling size, age, design, and features. Those three properties sold
between July 2015 and September 2016 for prices ranging from $493,700 to $687,500, or $139.86
to $195.53 per square foot of living area. The PTAB concluded that the subject property’s reduced
total assessment of $166,610, which, according to the PTAB, reflected an estimated market value
of approximately $499,880, or $136.73 per square foot of living area, was justified considering its
inferior condition when compared to the most similar sales comparable properties and being in
close proximity to high-voltage power lines. 5 After considering the assessment reduction granted
to the subject property based on equity considerations, the PTAB found no further reduction in the
subject property’s assessment was warranted based on comparable sales. Again, given that the
PTAB set forth rational reasons for making its decision, we cannot say that a conclusion opposite
that of the PTAB is clearly apparent.
¶ 34 As noted above, the gravamen of plaintiff’s argument below was that there was an “error”
in the subject property’s record card in 2011 and that this “error” continued through 2016, which
caused an increase in plaintiff’s property taxes. The note in question reads “2011 add F/B, 1378
SF 1/2 bath, and A/C.” At the hearing before the PTAB, plaintiff interpreted the note to mean that,
5 As noted earlier, based on the PTAB’s estimate of the market value of the subject
property, we calculate the market value per square foot of living area to be $135.40
($499,880/3692).
- 15 - 2023 IL App (2d) 210150-U
in 2011, she finished the basement of her home, added a half bath, and installed air conditioning.
Paslawsky contested plaintiff’s interpretation. He testified that the note was made after the assessor
discovered that these features were listed on the MLS sheet for the subject property but were not
already included on the subject property’s record card. On appeal, plaintiff continues to insist that
she is entitled to a further reduction in the assessed value of the subject property because the
assessor “added” to the property record card “untrue information to increase” her tax assessment
by “25.24% *** for *** 2011,” which thereby affected the annual amount she paid in taxes. She
further asserts that she established at the hearing before the PTAB that she “never added” the
features listed in the notation. However, nothing in the record supports plaintiff’s interpretation
that the notation meant that she added the finished basement, half bath, and air conditioning to the
subject property. Furthermore, we find no indication in the record to establish that the PTAB
construed the notation to mean that plaintiff herself added a finished basement, a half bath, and air
conditioning to the subject property in 2011. Indeed, at the hearing before the PTAB, the ALJ
stated that he was not reading the notation to mean that plaintiff added the additional features.
Rather, the ALJ interpreted the notation to mean that the assessor “didn’t have [those features] on
the record before that, but [he or she] found out about it.” Quite simply, plaintiff’s claim that the
2011 notation on the subject property’s record card constituted an “error” finds no support in the
record. As such, she is not entitled to relief on this basis.
¶ 35 IV. CONCLUSION
¶ 36 For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County,
which affirmed the final administrative order of the PTAB.
¶ 37 Affirmed.
- 16 -