Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; April 14, 1960; Illinois; State Appellate Court
Presiding Justice Bryant delivered the court's opinion in an injunction action against the City of Chicago to prevent the discontinuation of water service to properties owned by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs became equitable owners of the property on December 28, 1956, after acquiring it from Lawn Savings and Loan Association, which had foreclosed on previous owners who had an unpaid water bill of $41.20 prior to the plaintiffs' ownership. The City threatened to cut off water supply unless the prior owners' debt was paid, prompting the plaintiffs to seek an injunction.
The City moved to strike and dismiss the complaint, which the trial court granted. The City presented ten reasons for dismissal, focusing primarily on two: first, that the complaint lacked sufficient allegations and indicated that the plaintiffs had an adequate legal remedy, justifying dismissal; second, that the City’s Water Department's actions to collect the unpaid bill were authorized by ordinance, which the plaintiffs did not challenge, thus presuming its validity.
The court recognized the authority granted to the City under section 75-4 of the Revised Cities and Villages Act to regulate water rates and the related provisions in the Municipal Code of Chicago. The court noted that the ordinance's constitutionality could not be contested and must be treated as valid. The plaintiffs argued that the City did not follow proper procedures to enforce the ordinance against non-owners, referencing sections of the Municipal Code that outline responsibilities for service charges and termination processes. Section 185-33 specifies that the service applicant is responsible for charges until a termination notice is given, while section 185-44 allows for service termination due to delinquency but does not clarify whether it applies only to the liable party. Section 185-45 details the enforcement of liens, requiring action within four months after charges become due.
Section 185-46 mandates that a foreclosure suit to enforce a lien must be initiated within four months if no lien has been filed, or within two years if a lien exists. Section 185-46.1 elaborates that the enforcement of the statutory lien is not the exclusive remedy for collecting unpaid water charges; an alternative remedy includes cutting off the water supply. If more than four months have passed since the charges were due, water service may only be cut off if a suit has commenced or a lien filed, unless the responsible party is the owner or occupant at the time of disconnection.
In the present case, no lien was filed, nor was suit initiated within the four-month timeframe after the charges became due. Thus, the statutory lien cannot be utilized for collection. However, the City retains the right to cut off the water supply under certain conditions since remedies are cumulative. The ability to disconnect water service is governed by section 185-44 and is subject to the provisions of section 185-46.1, which allows enforcement against the person liable for the service.
The ordinance defines the liable party as the individual benefitting from the water services. Ownership of property entails responsibility for any outstanding water bills, typically addressed at the property closing. The City faces challenges in monitoring individuals currently controlling the property, making it difficult to collect outstanding charges if the remedy of disconnection is limited solely to the current property controller. The court concluded that the appellants, by using the City's water supply, qualified as the "person liable therefor" under section 185-46.1. Therefore, the City was justified in disconnecting the water supply, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's order.
