City of Centralia v. Garland
134 N.E.3d 992
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- The City of Centralia sued several riparian property owners seeking authority to remove boat docks from Lake Centralia for failure to register and pay municipal dock fees.
- The City relied on a 1926 quitclaim deed (Centralia Water Supply Co. → City) and municipal code § 20‑66 to assert ownership and regulatory power over the lake and docks.
- Defendants contested the City’s authority, arguing the City lacked power to own or regulate the lake (ultra vires) and that any extraterritorial regulatory power is statutorily limited by distance.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for the City, authorized dock removal at owners’ expense, and certified the orders for appeal under Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(a).
- On appeal the court took judicial notice of the City’s 1893 incorporation election under the Cities and Villages Act and of the 1926 deed; it reviewed whether the City lawfully acquired/retains the lake and whether municipal statutes limit its regulatory reach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May private parties challenge the City’s acquisition/ownership of Lake Centralia as ultra vires? | City: acquisition/ownership cannot be collaterally attacked by private parties; ultra vires challenges are generally for the State. | Defendants: they suffered invasion of rights and may raise ultra vires to defeat enforcement of ordinances. | Court: parties may raise challenge but unnecessary to resolve because City validly acquired the lake. |
| Did the City have authority in 1926 and under current law to acquire and retain ownership of Lake Centralia? | City: Cities & Villages Act (and current Municipal Code §2‑2‑12) broadly authorize municipalities to acquire/hold property for corporate purposes. | Defendants: even if acquired, certain Municipal Code provisions limit continued ownership if not used for "waterworks." | Court: City had authority to acquire in 1926 under the Cities & Villages Act and to retain ownership now under Municipal Code general grant of property‑holding power. |
| Does a 3‑mile (or 20‑mile) waters‑jurisdiction rule limit the City’s regulatory power over lakes it owns outside corporate limits? | City: §7‑4‑2 expressly subjects municipally owned property outside limits to the city’s ordinances and control; ownership governs. | Defendants: §7‑4‑4 (3‑mile) and §11‑125‑2 (20‑mile/pollution) constrain city authority over waters and thus create factual questions (e.g., distance). | Court: §7‑4‑2 controls for municipally owned property; the 3‑mile/20‑mile provisions do not displace owner‑based jurisdiction, so summary judgment was proper. |
| Did factual disputes (e.g., whether lake is within specified miles) preclude summary judgment? | City: ownership and admission evidence eliminate genuine factual dispute on regulation authority. | Defendants: distance and current use (not a waterworks) create material factual issues. | Court: No genuine issue of material fact; ownership in record resolves jurisdictional question and summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mills v. Forest Preserve District, 345 Ill. 503 (1931) (discussed scope of who may seek rescission or challenge municipal property acquisition)
- Avery v. City of Chicago, 345 Ill. 640 (1931) (taxpayer standing principles and limitations on when ultra vires may be raised)
- Forsythe v. Clark USA, Inc., 224 Ill. 2d 274 (2007) (summary judgment standards)
- City of Naperville, 226 Ill. App. 3d 662 (1992) (specific statutory zoning limits cannot be overridden by general ownership jurisdiction)
- Egidi v. Town of Libertyville, 218 Ill. App. 3d 596 (1991) (standing and relief in municipal real‑estate disputes)