# Cantigny Trust v. Department of Revenue > Appellate Court of Illinois · June 30, 1988 · 171 Ill. App. 3d 1082 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9522121 ## Case - **Full name:** CANTIGNY TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Defendant-Appellant - **Court:** Appellate Court of Illinois - **Decided:** June 30, 1988 - **Citations:** 171 Ill. App. 3d 1082; 122 Ill. Dec. 259; 526 N.E.2d 518; 1988 Ill. App. LEXIS 933 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Inglis - **Judges:** Dunn, Inglis - **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9522121 ## Opinion text JUSTICE INGLIS, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The majority refers to “historical perspective” arid comments on lack of modem need to have employees reside on religious or charitable grounds. The foundation for the majority decision is Benedictine Sisters of the Sacred Heart v. Department of Revenue (1987), 155 Ill. App. 3d 325 . I question whether government should make the determination of whether the Benedictine sisters, who are constitutionally practicing their religious beliefs, should lose tax-exempt status of a portion of their property because they required employees to reside on the grounds. Benedictine Sisters may be leading us in the wrong direction. Turning to Cantigny Park and Gardens, we all know there is very little respect for property among certain members of our society. Security is important. Museums and nature areas of natural beauty can be damaged or forever destroyed in minutes. The presence of employees coming and going at all hours is a significant deterrent to vandalism and theft. The majority should not require the expense of hiring 24-hour security because it believes the service being performed by resident employees is not reasonably necessary. The majority draws a distinction between what is reasonably necessary and what is convenient for the institution. Are we drawing too fine a line? Black’s Law Dictionary defines “necessary”: “This word must be considered in the connection in which it is used, as it is a word susceptible of various meanings. It may import absolute physical necessity or inevitability, or it may import that which is only convenient, useful, appropriate, suitable, proper, or conducive to the end sought. It is an adjective expressing degrees, and may express mere convenience or that which is indispensable or an absolute physical necessity. It may mean something which in the accomplishment of a given object cannot be dispensed with, or it may mean something reasonably useful and proper, and of greater or lesser benefit or convenience, and its force and meaning must be determined with relation to the particular object sought.” (Black’s Law Dictionary 928 (5th ed. 1979).) Is the use reasonably necessary? Anyone acquainted with the operation of our State and national parks will find numerous resident park attendants and rangers. I submit they are all deemed to be necessary, convenient and in the best interest of proper operation of the facilities. The use proposed here is not unusual or overreaching, and the appropriate authority is only doing what similar government-operated facilities do every day. Prompt and efficient maintenance of security, heating, lighting, air conditioning, driveway clearance, et cetera, are not incidental to the institutions. Without them, the institutions could not function as they are expected to function in today’s world. The real historical perspective is that we are more dependent on the ancillary services of life than we have ever been, and even momentary loss of service can cause great damage and expense. If religious institutions and charities are to lose their tax-exemption, let the legislature do it, but let us not erode their lawful exemptions in the courts by determining that maintenance of security and modern services on site is not reasonably necessary. For the above reasons, I would affirm the trial court’s decision. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9522121. Public record. Not legal advice.