Case: 1:25-cv-05908 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/25 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

GARY NAPIER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
MARIA PAPPAS, in her official capacity as ) Case No.
Treasurer and Ex Officio County Collector )
of Cook County; MONICA GORDON, in her )
official capacity as Clerk of Cook County, )
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, an Illinois )
political subdivision unit of government; )
KWAME RAOUL, in his official capacity as )
Attorney General of the State of Illinois, and )
DAVID HARRIS, in his official capacity as )
Director of the Illinois Department of )
Revenue, )
)
Defendants. )

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff, GARY NAPIER, by and through undersigned counsel, and for his

Complaint against Defendants, MARIA PAPPAS, in her official capacity as

Treasurer and Ex Officio County Collector of Cook County; MONICA GORDON, in

her official capacity as Clerk of Cook County, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, an

Illinois political subdivision unit of government; KWAME RAOUL, in his official

capacity as Attorney General of the State of Illinois; and DAVID HARRIS, in his

official capacity as director of the Illinois Department of Revenue, states and alleges

as follows:
 Case: 1:25-cv-05908 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/25 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:2

INTRODUCTION

The Fifth Amendment to the United State Constitution bars the State of

Illinois, or any county therein, from seizing property from its owners for the purpose

of collecting delinquent property taxes, while in the process forever depriving the

property owner of the surplus equity in said property without compensation. See

U.S. Const. amend. V. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that such action

is an unconstitutional taking of the owners’ property. Yet, in Illinois this practice

persists.

The Cook County property tax sale system, which implements the Illinois

Property Tax Code, 35 ILCS 200/1-1 et seq., unconstitutionally deprives a property

owner who fails to pay overdue property taxes of not just their property to the

extent it is taken to satisfy the amount of the tax debt, but of all of the surplus

equity in the property possessed by the owner; i.e. - the market value of the

property over and above what the owner owes in overdue taxes, penalties, interest

and costs. The County Defendants sell the delinquent taxes to a private party

investor-called a “tax purchaser”—who pays the past due taxes and, in exchange,

receives the right to take ownership of the property if the property is not redeemed

through payment of the taxes, plus all accrued penalties and interest by a deadline

known as the “redemption date.” Alternatively, if the property is not sold, it is

forfeited to the county or state. If the property is not “redeemed” by paying all

amounts due in taxes and related charges by the redemption date, the tax lien

2
 Case: 1:25-cv-05908 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/25 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:3

certificate holder is entitled to a tax deed to the property, upon which will transfer

ownership of the property free and clear, no matter how much it was worth in

excess of the unredeemed taxes and related charges.

Neither the tax purchaser nor the County reimburses the property owner for

their lost surplus equity. Therefore, a property tax sale, where the owner cannot or

does not successfully redeem, will ultimately result in a total loss to the owner of

not just the property to the extent of the amount of the taxes due, but also the

entire value of the property over and above the tax amounts owed.

Plaintiff Gary Napier is a residential property owner in Matteson, Cook

County, who both has surplus equity in his residential property and is delinquent in

his property tax payments to Cook County. His property has been seized and

auctioned pursuant to statute, and though Napier still has title to his property for

the moment, Plaintiff’s property faces two tax sales, one with a tax deed petition

filed, imminently threatening to strip his approximately $120,000.00 surplus equity

from him without compensation, violating his constitutional rights under both the

federal and Illinois constitutions. He is under constant threat that at any time, the

tax purchaser would own Napier’s property and Napier would permanently lose all

surplus equity he has in the property. As long as his property taxes remain unpaid,

he risks having his entire property taken for the amount of the tax debt owed plus

interest and costs, without receiving compensation for the surplus value.

Napier asserts his constitutional rights against the County Defendants for

3
 Case: 1:25-cv-05908 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/25 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:4

their continued threats of constitutional violations against Napier, and the State

Defendants for their unconstitutional scheme which violates Napier’s constitutional

rights, not to mention the rights of all persons facing the loss of surplus equity due

to property tax delinquency in the State of Illinois. Napier is entitled to declaratory

and injunctive relief barring this unlawful conduct.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201, 2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has jurisdiction over

pendant state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

2. Venue lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Gary Napier is a natural person and a citizen of the United

States. He resides in the Village of Matteson, County of Cook, State of Illinois.

Napier owns residential property in Matteson, but owes Cook County for property

tax assessments.

4. Defendant Maria Pappas is sued in her official capacity as the

Treasurer and Ex Officio County Collector of Cook County, Illinois. As such, she

maintains her principal offices at 118 North Clark Street, Unit 112, Chicago, IL

60602.

5. Defendant Pappas administers the property tax statutes for Cook

County, pursuant to 35 ILCS 200, et seq. She is the Cook County official who mails

4
 Case: 1:25-cv-05908 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/25 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:5

delinquent tax notices (35 ILCS 200/20-5), advertises the tax delinquent property

for sale and notices the tax assessee of the pending sale (35 ILCS 200/21-110, 21-

135), sells tax delinquent properties (35 ILCS 200/21-190), and establishes rules of

the property sale (35 ILCS 200/21-205). Defendant Pappas’s ongoing enforcement of

35 ILCS 200/Tit. 7 against Cook County residents places Plaintiff Napier under

imminent threat of having his property seized and deeded to a tax purchaser, which

would result in him being permanently deprived of his surplus equity in his

property without compensation.

6. Defendant Monica Gordon is sued in her official capacity as the Clerk

of Cook County, Illinois. As such, she maintains her principal offices at 118 North

Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60602.

7. Defendant Gordon is responsible for enforcing the complained-of laws

by sending out statutory notices (35 ILCS 200/22-5), preparing estimates of

redemption (35 ILCS 200/21-355), preparing and maintaining the judgment and

warrant books (35 ILCS 200/21-110, 21-120), memorializing the sales, payments,

and dates of redemption (35 ILCS 200/21-360), and executing tax deeds (35 ILCS

200/22-85), among other duties, all of which are integral steps in Illinois’ statutory

tax sale scheme that effectuates the unconstitutional taking of private property

without a compensation mechanism.

8. Defendant Gordon’s ongoing enforcement of 35 ILCS 200/Tit. 7 against

Cook County residents places Plaintiff Napier under imminent threat of having his

property seized and deeded to a tax purchaser, which would result in him being

5
 Case: 1:25-cv-05908 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/25 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:6

permanently deprived of his surplus equity in his property.

9. Defendant Cook County, Illinois is a public body as defined in 5 ILCS

120/1, et seq. Cook County maintains a policy, practice, and custom of seizing

property of delinquent property taxpayers, pursuant to 35 ILCS Art. 21, and

auctioning that property to winning tax buyers (and sometimes to government

entities for no payment), who – after the expiration of a redemption period – can

exchange the tax certificate for a tax deed to the delinquent taxpayer’s property,

including all surplus equity the delinquent taxpayer may have acquired in the

property, thus permanently depriving the delinquent taxpayer of said surplus

equity. The challenged custom, and policy practice neither serves a valid public

purpose, nor serves a solely a remedial purpose.

10. Defendant Kwame Raoul is sued in his official capacity as the Attorney

General of the State of the Illinois. In that capacity, he maintains his principal

offices at 500 South 2nd Street, Springfield, IL 62702, but also maintains offices

throughout the State, including in Chicago in Cook County.

11. Defendant Raoul’s ongoing enforcement of the relevant State law

against Illinois property owners, including Plaintiff Napier, places Napier under

imminent threat of having his property seized and deeded to a tax purchaser, which

would result in him being permanently deprived of his surplus equity in the

property without compensation.

12. Defendant David Harris is sued in his official capacity as the Director

of the Illinois Department of Revenue. In that capacity, he maintains his principal

6
 Case: 1:25-cv-05908 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/25 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:7

offices at 101 West Jefferson Street, Springfield, IL 62702, but also maintains

offices through the State, including in Chicago and Des Plaines in Cook County.

13. Defendant Harris’s ongoing enforcement of the relevant State law

against Illinois property owners, including Plaintiff Napier, places Napier under

imminent threat of having his property seized and deeded to a tax purchaser, which

would result in him being permanently deprived of his surplus equity in the

property without compensation.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Statutory Scheme

14. Title 7 of the Illinois Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/Tit. 7, et seq.) is

entitled “Tax Collection,” and generally governs the assessment and collection of

property taxes within the State of Illinois. Title 7 contains four Articles, which are:

• Article 19 of the Illinois Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/Art. 19, et
seq.) governs the officials responsible for property tax collection at
the local level within the State of Illinois.

• Article 20 of the Illinois Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/Art. 20, et
seq.) governs the process for the collection of property taxes within
the State of Illinois.

• Article 21 of the Illinois Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/Art. 21, et
seq.) is entitled “Due Dates, Delinquencies, and Enforcement of
Payments,” and governs – among other related topics – tax liens,
sales of properties for delinquent taxes, and redemption of
auctioned properties within the State of Illinois.

• Article 22 of the Illinois Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/Art. 22, et
seq.) governs the procedures by which a tax purchaser petitions for,
and receives, a tax deed for an auctioned property within the State
of Illinois.

7
 Case: 1:25-cv-05908 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/25 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:8

15. Under the Property Tax Code, a delinquent taxpayer will have his or

her property seized by the County (and its Treasurer acting as Ex Officio County

Collector) in which the property sits, then either auctioned to a tax purchaser or

government entity who receives a tax certificate from the County and its County

Collector in exchange for payment of the delinquent taxes. The tax purchaser then

is entitled to payments of interest and costs on the unpaid taxes, which the property

owner must pay in full in order to redeem the property during a statutory

redemption period. If the property is not redeemed through a full payment the

Circuit Court may order that a tax deed be issued which upon recording vested the

tax certificate holder or its assignee with ownership of the property and its full

value, while the property owner is dispossessed not only of the property, but of all

the surplus equity the property owner had owned. See 35 ILCS Art. 21.

16. The tax sale process in Illinois is governed by 35 ILCS 200/Art. 21, et

seq. through which the Illinois General Assembly exercises its power to collect

revenue on behalf of the People of Illinois, delegating enforcement to Defendant

Pappas as County Treasurer and Ex Officio County Collector of Cook County,

Illinois, who applies for judgments and issues certificates of purchase in the name of

the People of Illinois (35 ILCS 200/21-180, 21-250). The process provides for the sale

of tax delinquent real property (35 ILCS 200/21-190) subject to the right to

redemption enshrined in State statutes and the Illinois Constitution. The sale of the

property is memorialized through a Certificate of Purchase entitling the holder to

redemption monies or to a tax deed if unredeemed (35 ILCS 200/21-240, 22-40).

8
 Case: 1:25-cv-05908 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/25 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:9

17. The process authorizes the divesture of all equity in the property,

including surplus equity (i.e. value of the property in excess of the tax and tax

collection amounts), without compensation, upon issuance of a tax deed, regardless

of whether title vests in a private buyer or the county, and neither considers nor

accounts for the property’s value relative to the tax debt at any stage beyond initial

assessment, ensuring no mechanism exists to compensate owners for surplus

equity. The legislature lacked authority to enact such a draconian statute, which

intentionally forfeits all surplus equity - contrary to the Illinois and U.S.

Constitutions.

Impact on Plaintiff

18. Napier is the sole owner and resident of the real property identified by

Permanent Real Estate Index Number (PIN): 31-23-311-022-0000, located at an

address commonly known as 21145 Maple St., Matteson, Illinois 60443 (the

“Home”). Napier acquired his Home in 1999 with his late wife, Karen L. Napier, as

tenants by the entirety. Following Karen’s death on April 14, 2018, Napier became

and remains the sole owner of his Home.

19. Napier is a United States Navy veteran with service-connected

disabilities, and his Home has been specially adapted to accommodate his disability-

related needs; it is also where he raised his daughter with his late wife, Karen,

making it a cornerstone of his family’s history and the main source of stability in

Napier’s life.

20. Deemed as disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs since 1991

9
 Case: 1:25-cv-05908 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/25 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:10

and now over 65 years old, Napier faces the loss of his unencumbered Home

through Illinois’ statutory tax scheme, which threatens to take his substantial

equity without compensation.

21. Napier fell delinquent on property taxes, and the Home is subject to

tax sales:

i. 2020 Taxes: On November 16, 2022, Defendant Pappas sold the

ii. 2021 Taxes: On January 10, 2024, Defendant Pappas sold the
Home for 2021 general taxes (Cert. No. 21-0001952). The
redemption period expires on July 16, 2026. A petition for tax
deed has not been filed. The certificate of purchase holder also
paid the 2022 and 2023 property taxes.

22. For $793.00, Defendant Maria Pappas, in her official capacity as

County Treasurer and Ex Officio County Collector of Cook County, Illinois sold

Napier’s Home for unpaid taxes for the 2020 tax year.

23. Defendant Pappas sold Napier’s Home again for $2,637.01 based upon

a 2021 tax delinquency.

24. The Property’s most recent market value as determined and published

by the Cook County Assessor’s Office is $130,000.00.

25. The tax sale process threatens to take Napier’s surplus equity in his

Home (approximately $120,000.00) without just compensation by authorizing the

taking of all equity in the Home beyond the tax debt.

26. The current cost to redeem Napier’s Home from both tax sales is

10
 Case: 1:25-cv-05908 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/25 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:11

approximately $11,526.47.

27. Napier did not redeem the Home by making payment in full by May

22, 2025 as to the 2020 property tax sale, Napier may lose title, possession, and all

surplus equity in his Home by divesture through a tax deed.

28. Other than the tax delinquencies, the Home is otherwise

unencumbered. Napier holds his Home free and clear. He has paid off his

mortgages, and there are no recorded liens against his Home. Napier would have

paid the relevant property taxes but for being unable to do so. He did not abandon

his property, nor did he intend to do so.

29. His property has been seized, auctioned and sold by Pappas and Cook

County in order for those Defendants to obtain payment of those property taxes,

pursuant to 35 ILCS Art. 21.

30. Napier has not been able to redeem due to his financial and health

situation.

31. Napier’s Home (with its surplus equity) will thus be forfeited, pursuant

to the relevant sections of the Illinois Property Tax Code and Cook County policy.

Napier’s property taxes have been twice sold, and it is expected that Defendants

will imminently take and convey Napier’s surplus equity in his Home to the tax

purchaser without providing Napier due compensation.

32. As a direct and proximate result of the County Defendants’ actions and

state law as enforced by the State and County Defendants, Napier will lose all

rights in his property, including the value of the surplus equity of the property,

11
 Case: 1:25-cv-05908 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/25 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:12

which is approximately $120,000.00 and which is sizably more than the sum of all

taxes, interest, and penalties owed against the property.

33. Plaintiff’s property faces two tax sales, one with a tax deed petition

filed, threatening to strip his approximately $120,000.00 surplus equity without

compensation, violating his constitutional rights and Illinois’ guarantee of a certain

remedy for property wrongs (Ill. Const. art. I, § 12).

34. Napier lives under imminent threat that his property will be seized,

and that pursuant to 35 ILCS 200/Art. 21, he will lose the value of all the surplus

equity in his property when the tax deed transfer, and the payment of the amounts

owed due to the delinquent property taxes, is complete.

35. Under Illinois State law and County policy, Napier will not receive any

compensation for the surplus equity in his property after a deed is issued to a tax

purchaser and he loses ownership of his property.

36. An indemnity fund established by 35 ILCS 200/21-295 et seq. may

compensate some owners for losses due to tax sales, but does not provide a

mechanism to compensate for the taking of surplus equity for any divested property

owner (nor was it intended to), restricts access based on criteria such as residency,

fault, or property type, while suffering from chronic insolvency and

mismanagement. Napier would not qualify for an indemnity fund compensation

settlement.

37. In fact, the indemnity fund under 35 ILCS 200/21-295 et seq. would

not compensate for this taking. Also, payments under the judicial process are

12
 Case: 1:25-cv-05908 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/25 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:13

discretionary and inadequate under Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023).

The Cook County indemnity fund is chronically insolvent. As of November 2024,

Cook County’s indemnity fund had a backlog of 278 unpaid judgments totally

roughly $33.62 million and a 6.5 year lag in payment. Entitlement to an indemnify

fund judgment arbitrarily excludes owners based on residency, fault, or property

type, often denying recovery due to nonpayment or underfunding.

COUNT ONE:
UNLAWFUL TAKING – U.S. CONST. AMEND. V – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

38. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges Paragraphs 1-37, inclusive, as if

fully repeated herein.

39. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States

Constitution, which is incorporated against the States and local governments by the

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, forbids counties to take property

without just compensation. See Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023).

40. By maintaining and enforcing a set of laws that, in the course of a

County seizing and auctioning off a taxpayer’s property as a means of collecting

delinquent property taxes owed to a County, allows the buyer of the auctioned

property to keep the surplus equity that rightfully belongs to the dispossessed

property owner, Defendants are propagating customs, policies, and practices that

violate the Plaintiff’s individual right against being subject to unlawful takings

under the Fifth Amendment, damaging Plaintiff in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

41. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive

13
 Case: 1:25-cv-05908 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/25 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:14

relief against such customs, policies, and practices.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, GARY NAPIER, respectfully requests that this

Honorable Court:

1. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions barring Defendants,

their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or

participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing

35 ILCS 200/Art. 1 in such a manner as to deprive Plaintiff of the value of any

surplus equity in his property, as said statutes are facially and as-applied to Napier

unconstitutional violations of Napier’s Fifth Amendment rights;

2. Enter declaratory relief consistent with the injunction;

3. Award Plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;

4. Award Plaintiff the ordinary costs of suit; and

5. Grant Plaintiff any and all further relief as this Court deems just and

appropriate.

COUNT TWO:
EXCESSIVE FINES – U.S. CONST. AMEND. VIII – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

42. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges Paragraphs 1-41, inclusive, as if

fully repeated herein.

43. The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United

States Constitution, which is incorporated against the States and local governments

by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, forbids counties from imposing

excessive fines on the people, which includes Napier.

14
 Case: 1:25-cv-05908 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/25 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:15

44. The State law, and the County policies following that law, which takes

the surplus value from delinquent property taxpayers is punitive, and is designed to

punish said delinquent taxpayers while deterring others from failing to pay their

property taxes.

45. These fines are disproportionate, and therefore excessive in violation of

the Eighth Amendment. See Timbs v. Indiana, 139 S. Ct. 682, 693 (2019); Tyler v.

Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023) (concurrence).

46. Here, the single offense of failure to pay property taxes, which was as

low as a few thousand dollars, is resulting in a sanction of all of Napier’s surplus

equity, which is almost equivalent to the entire fair market value of the property.

47. Napier is subject to the constant threat of an excessive fine as the

County Defendants – under State law - are imminently and inevitably set to impose

a forfeiture on Napier far in excess of the underlying amounts owed relating to his

property tax delinquency by seizing and permanently depriving Napier of the

surplus equity in his property. This is unconstitutionally disproportionate and

excessive in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s excessive-fines clause.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, GARY NAPIER, respectfully requests that this

Honorable Court:

1. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions barring Defendants,

their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or

participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing

35 ILCS 200/Art. 1 in such a manner as to deprive Plaintiff of the value of any

15
 Case: 1:25-cv-05908 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/25 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:16

surplus equity in his property, as said statutes are facially and as-applied to Napier

unconstitutional violations of Napier’s Eighth Amendment rights;

2. Enter declaratory relief consistent with the injunction;

3. Award Plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;

4. Award Plaintiff the ordinary costs of suit; and

5. Grant Plaintiff any and all further relief as this Court deems just and

appropriate.

COUNT THREE:
UNLAWFUL TAKING – ILL. CONST., ART. I, § 15

48. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges Paragraphs 1-47, inclusive, as if

fully repeated herein.

49. The Illinois State Constitution provides in relevant part: “Private

property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation as

provided by law.” Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 15.

50. By maintaining and enforcing a set of laws that, in the course of a

County seizing and auctioning off a taxpayer’s property as a means of collecting

delinquent property taxes owed to a County, allows the buyer of the auctioned

property to keep the surplus equity that rightfully belongs to the dispossessed

property owner, Defendants are propagating customs, policies, and practices that

violate the Plaintiff’s individual right against being subject to unlawful takings

under Article 1, § 15 of the Illinois Constitution.

51. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive

16
 Case: 1:25-cv-05908 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/25 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:17

relief against such customs, policies, and practices.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, GARY NAPIER, respectfully requests that this

Honorable Court:

1. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions barring Defendants,

their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or

participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing

35 ILCS 200/Art. 1 in such a manner as to deprive Plaintiff of the value of any

surplus equity in his property, as said statutes are facially and as-applied to Napier

unconstitutional violations of Napier’s rights under Article 1, § 15 of the Illinois

Constitution;

2. Enter declaratory relief consistent with the injunction;

3. Award Plaintiff the ordinary costs of suit; and

4. Grant Plaintiff any and all further relief as this Court deems just and

appropriate.

COUNT FOUR:
EXCESSIVE FINES – ILL. CONST. ART. 1, § 5

52. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges Paragraphs 1-51, inclusive, as if

fully repeated herein.

53. Article 1, § 5 of the Illinois Constitution forbids imposing excessive

fines on the people, which includes Napier.

54. The State law, and the County policies following that law, which takes

the surplus value from delinquent property taxpayers is punitive, and is designed to

17
 Case: 1:25-cv-05908 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/25 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:18

punish said delinquent taxpayers while deterring others from failing to pay their

property taxes.

55. These fines are disproportionate, and therefore excessive in violation of

Article 1, § 5 of the Illinois Constitution.

56. Here, the single offense of failure to pay property taxes, which was as

low as a few thousand dollars, is resulting in a sanction of all of Napier’s surplus

equity, which is almost equivalent to the entire fair market value of the property.

Defendant’s confiscation of all of Napier’s property interests – including surplus

equity in the Home- is not solely remedial and bears no correlation to any actual

loss of tax revenue or costs of enforcing the tax laws attributable to wrong doing by

Napier.

57. Napier is subject to the constant threat of an excessive fine as the

County Defendants – following State law - are imminently and inevitably set to

impose a forfeiture on Napier far in excess of the underlying amounts owed relating

to his property tax delinquency by seizing and permanently depriving Napier of the

surplus equity in his property. This is unconstitutionally disproportionate and

excessive in violation of the Illinois Constitution’s excessive-fines clause in Article 1,

§ 5.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, GARY NAPIER, respectfully requests that this

Honorable Court:

1. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions barring Defendants,

their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or

18
 Case: 1:25-cv-05908 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/25 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:19

participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing

35 ILCS 200/Art. 1 in such a manner as to deprive Plaintiff of the value of any

surplus equity in his property, as said statutes are facially and as-applied to Napier

unconstitutional violations of Napier’s rights under Article 1, § 5 of the Illinois

Constitution;

2. Enter declaratory relief consistent with the injunction;

3. Award Plaintiff the ordinary costs of suit; and

4. Grant Plaintiff any and all further relief as this Court deems just and

appropriate.

Dated: May 27, 2025 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ David G. Sigale

David G. Sigale (Atty. ID# 6238103)

Attorney for Plaintiff Gary Napier

19