MARCIA RICHARDSON v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (2002)

ORDER

This personal injury claim against the State and the Teachers Retirement System of Illinois (the TRS) is before the court on the respondent's motion to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction over the TRS fund and its property. Respondent relies on our decision in Board of Directors of 345 Fullerton Parkway Condo. Ass'n. v. Teachers Retirement System, 50 Ill.Ct.Cl. 396 (1998) (TRS) which, in turn, distinguished -- as to applicability -- the appellate courts decision in Jones v. Jones-Blythe Constr. Co., 150 Ill.App. 3d 53, 501 N E.2d 374, 103 Ill.Dec. 353 (4th Dist. 1986) (Slip-and-fall on TRS office premises), and came to the opposite conclusion as Utterback v. Board of Trustees of the Illinois Teachers Retirement System, 292 Ill.App. 3d 1135, 717 N E.2d 866, 240 Ill.Dec. 517 (4th Dist. 1997) (Slip-and-fall on TRS investment property).

In this case, as in TRS, supra, the claimant seeks redress for personal injuries that occurred on property owned by the TRS as investment property, and the liability of the TRS, if any, is predicated on its duties as an owner of the real estate where the injury occurred. As we observed in TRS, supra, that ownership is not the State's and the State is not liable for the TRS's investments or investment liabilities: its investments, including real estate, are part of the TRS pension fund, which is a trust fund, and are ultimately are the property of its beneficiaries -- the retired and to-be-retired teachers of downstate Illinois school districts.

Because the TRS is a hybrid statutory entity -- its governing board is a public body as well as a trustee and its offices occupy State buildings and its operations are subsidized by State appropriations -- while its funds, beneficiaries and operations have essentially nothing to do with the State government -- questions of its liability require careful analysis by lawyers and courts.

If this alleged injury had occurred on TRS office property, the action would properly be against the State (and thus in this court)(see, e.g.,Jones v. Jones-Blythe Constr. Co., supra) rather than against the TRS in the circuit court where this dispute belongs, and where we are informed a companion action against the TRS is pending -- and where recovery, if warranted, may be had against TRS assets rather than against the State treasury.

This court cannot permit TRS pension liabilities to be shifted to the State via actions brought here. Nothing has occurred, and no legislation has been enacted, since our 1998 decision in TRS to alter our conclusions as to the separation of the State treasury and this pension fund -- which is not clothed with sovereign immunity and over which this court lacks jurisdiction.

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Respondent's motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is granted; and

2 This claim is dismissed with prejudice.

EPSTEIN, J.