Enbridge Pipeline, LLC v. Monarch Farms, LLC
2017 IL App (4th) 150807
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- IEPC (Enbridge Pipeline (Illinois), LLC, now Illinois Extension Pipeline Company) received Commission authorization to build the Southern Access Extension (SAX) pipeline and, after failed negotiations, obtained Commission eminent-domain authority to acquire easements across multiple McLean County properties.
- IEPC filed separate condemnation complaints in mid-2014 seeking permanent and temporary easements and a judicial determination of just compensation; landowners filed traverse motions challenging IEPC's right to condemn.
- At a November 2014 traverse hearing the trial court denied landowners' traverse motions and treated the hearing like a section 2-619 motion to dismiss, refusing to hear live testimony or offers of proof.
- Before condemnation trials, the trial court granted IEPC motions in limine excluding landowners’ lay and expert valuation testimony (and several disclosed controlled experts) as improperly based on fear, stigma, hydrostatic testing risks, and other alleged improper factors; IEPC then presented stipulated appraisal values and obtained directed verdicts awarding just compensation.
- This court (4th Dist.) compared these proceedings to its recent decision in Kuerth, concluded the evidentiary exclusions as to valuation experts were within the trial court’s discretion, but found the traverse hearings were improperly conducted and vacated the denial of the traverse motions, remanding for a limited, expedited traverse hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of landowners' valuation testimony and controlled experts | Their valuation evidence relied on relevant market effects including stigma and safety concerns | Testimony was speculative, based on improper elements (fear, leaks, hydrostatic testing), lacked comparables, and thus inadmissible | Court affirmed exclusion: experts considered improper elements and testimony was incompetent; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Excluding lay-owner valuation opinions under Rule 213 | Landowners argued they could offer lay opinions on value and remainder damages | IEPC argued owners were not qualified, failed disclosures, and opinions were speculative/improper | Court upheld exclusion for lack of qualifications, improper bases, or defective disclosure |
| Trial court's treatment of traverse motions (procedure) | Landowners argued they were entitled to present live evidence/offers of proof to rebut statutory presumptions created by Commission orders | IEPC argued traverse is akin to a 2-619 dismissal and landowners failed to plead an affirmative matter to defeat condemnation; also invoked collateral estoppel from prior appellate rulings | Court held the traverse hearing was improperly handled as a 2-619 motion; landowners must be permitted to present evidence to rebut statutory presumptions and to contest IEPC's good-faith negotiation finding |
| Remedy / disposition | Landowners sought reversal of condemnations and new traverse hearings | IEPC asserted no remand needed because presumptions unrebutted and many issues are not proper subjects of traverse | Court vacated denial of traverse motions and remanded for an expedited, limited traverse hearing (two-stage): (1) determine whether landowners rebut presumptions by clear and convincing or sufficient evidence; (2) if so, proceed to further court trial; appellate court retained jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Enbridge Energy (Illinois), LLC v. Kuerth, 69 N.E.3d 287 (4th Dist. 2016) (explains statutory presumptions from Commission orders and limits of traverse hearings)
- City of Springfield v. West Koke Mill Development Corp., 728 N.E.2d 781 (Ill. App. 2000) (prior treatment of traverse motions; factual background on municipal condemnation)
- Trunkline Gas Co. v. O’Bryan, 171 N.E.2d 45 (Ill. 1961) (testimony considering improper elements of damage is incompetent)
- Enbridge Pipelines (Illinois), L.L.C. v. Troyer, 38 N.E.3d 1282 (4th Dist. 2015) (describes issue in partial condemnation: just compensation is the central remaining question)
- Department of Transportation v. Rasmussen, 439 N.E.2d 48 (Ill. App. 1982) (reiterates rule that testimony tainted by improper elements is incompetent)