CBS Outdoor, Inc. v. Village of Itasca
960 N.E.2d 1212
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- CBS Outdoor leased billboard space at 865 W. Irving Park Rd, Itasca since 1982; Itasca rezoned the property in 1983 to allow a planned development with conditions including billboard removal by 1992, which were not met.
- In 1998 a 10-year lease allowed billboard maintenance through 2008, with post-2008 possession conditioned on not giving 90-days’ notice of termination.
- In 2003, TST/Impreso (TST) requested amendments to the planned development; TST agreed to terminate the billboard lease on May 31, 2008 and remove the billboard by June 30, 2008, with damages for each month beyond that date.
- In 2007 the Trust acquired the property from TST and, after Itasca amended the planned development, entered a lease with David’s Carpet Service; CBS’s rights under the 1998 lease remained.
- Itasca enacted ordinance No. 1395-07 (July 24, 2007) requiring billboard removal by June 30, 2008; CBS filed a complaint in 2008 seeking declaratory relief and injunctive relief; the case was moved to federal court and later remanded to state court, then transferred to Du Page County.
- The trial court dismissed Counts I–III as time-barred and Count V for lack of standing; Count IV was returned to federal court; CBS appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Counts I–III are time-barred. | CBS contends different limitations may apply; seeks state-law remedies. | Itasca argues 11-13-25(a) governs review of special-use decisions. | Counts I–III time-barred under 11-13-25(a) (not 13-205). |
| Whether CBS had standing to pursue the Eminent Domain Act claim (Count V). | CBS has standing to challenge removal provisions. | CBS lacks standing under 735 ILCS 30/1-1-1 et seq. | CBS lacked standing for Count V. |
| Whether CBS's federal claims should be dismissed or remanded. | Federal issues persist after state claims, requiring remand. | State claims were properly dismissed; federal issues unresolved. | State claims affirmed; case remanded to federal court for remaining federal claims. |
| Whether the removal provision constituted a taking under the Eminent Domain Act. | Removal was a taking requiring compensation. | No taking; termination of lease aligns with contract, not eminent domain. | No taking under the Act; affirmed dismissal of the coercion/taking theory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Our Savior Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Saville, 397 Ill.App.3d 1003 (Ill. App. 2009) (applies section 11-13-25(a) to de novo review of special uses)
- Village of Glendale Heights v. Glen Ayre Enterprises, Inc., 404 Ill.App.3d 205 (Ill. App. 2010) (statutory interpretation; de novo review standard and limitations analysis)
- Lamar Advantage G.P. Co. v. Addison Park District, 354 Ill.App.3d 130 (Ill. App. 2004) (lease expiration not a taking; coercion argument distinguished)
- Helping Others Maintain Environmental Standards v. A.J. Bos, 406 Ill.App.3d 669 (Ill. App. 2010) (forfeiture/first-time-argument rule on appeal)