## Facts

- Illinois law (Ill. Comp. Stat. ch. 65, § 5/11-12-5) allows municipalities to require certain payments from new development for school sites and other public grounds.
- The Village of Long Grove adopted ordinances requiring a building-permit applicant for each new dwelling unit to pay “impact fees” to the Village before a permit would issue.
- The ordinances directed the collected fees to (1) the Village’s school districts and (2) the acquisition, maintenance, preservation, and operation of Village open space.
- The school-fee provisions were not limited to expenditures for new school buildings or newly acquired school land.
- The open-space provisions were not limited to purchasing new open space; they also covered ongoing items such as maintenance and operation.
- Raintree Homes, Inc. and Raintree Builders, Inc. (collectively, Raintree) built 19 homes in the Village and paid impact fees for permits issued from August 1993 through March 1997.
- During part of that time, the fee schedule included amounts of $4,300 per permit, later increased to $7,300 per permit.
- Raintree filed suit seeking (1) a declaration that the school and open-space impact fees were invalid and (2) a refund of the fees it paid.
- After a bench trial, the circuit court found the ordinances unenforceable, rejected the Village’s affirmative defenses, and entered judgment for Raintree in the amount of $114,700.
- Raintree moved to modify the judgment to add prejudgment interest; the trial court denied that request.
- The Village appealed the refund and invalidation rulings, and Raintree cross-appealed the denial of prejudgment interest.

## Issues

1. Whether the Village’s school and open-space impact-fee ordinances were authorized under § 5/11-12-5 where the ordinances allowed use of the fees for broad school and open-space purposes not limited to land acquisition or other development-caused capital needs.
2. If the ordinances were unenforceable, whether the Village’s affirmative defenses (including the voluntary-payment doctrine and related “no loss” arguments) barred Raintree from recovering the fees it paid to obtain building permits.
3. Whether Raintree was entitled to prejudgment interest on the refunded fees, and what effect the absence of a transcript of the interest-motion hearing had on appellate review.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment declaring the Village’s school and open-space impact-fee ordinances unenforceable and awarding Raintree a $114,700 refund.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s rejection of the Village’s affirmative defenses, including arguments based on voluntary payment and the claim that Raintree suffered no recoverable loss because it could pass fees on to buyers.
- The appellate court affirmed the denial of prejudgment interest, applying a deferential standard of review and presuming the trial court acted correctly because the appellate record did not include a transcript of the hearing on the interest motion.

## Legal Principles

- A municipality may impose exactions tied to development only within the authority granted by statute; an ordinance that goes beyond that grant is unenforceable.
- Impact fees collected as a condition of permit issuance must be limited to purposes allowed by the enabling statute and to costs properly linked to new development, rather than serving as a general funding source for ongoing governmental functions.
- The voluntary-payment doctrine does not automatically bar recovery when payment is required as a condition to receive a needed governmental approval (such as a building permit) and the payer timely challenges the legality of the exaction.
- A defendant may argue that a refund would be an improper windfall if the payer suffered no loss, but the trial court may reject that defense where the evidence does not show that the fee was fully shifted to others.
- When an appellant fails to provide a complete record for review (including transcripts of relevant hearings), the reviewing court presumes the trial court’s ruling was correct and will not reverse a discretionary decision without a record basis.

## Conclusion

The Illinois Appellate Court held that Long Grove’s permit-conditioned school and open-space impact fees were unenforceable because the ordinances authorized uses beyond what the enabling statute allowed, so the Village had to refund the fees Raintree paid for 19 permits; however, the court upheld the denial of prejudgment interest because the record on appeal lacked the transcript needed to show reversible error.


Raintree Homes v. Village of Long Grove, 906 N.E.2d 751 (2009)