Enbridge Pipeline, LLC v. Monarch Farms, LLC
2017 IL App (4th) 150807
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Enbridge Pipeline (IEPC) obtained an Illinois Commerce Commission certificate and, later, eminent-domain authority to build the Southern Access Extension (SAX) oil pipeline and then filed condemnation complaints against multiple landowners for permanent and temporary easements.
- IEPC made final offers to landowners in May 2014; when offers were not accepted, IEPC filed condemnation actions in June–July 2014 seeking easements and a determination of just compensation.
- Landowners filed traverse motions seeking dismissal of the condemnations, challenging necessity, public purpose, amount taken, good-faith negotiation, and public convenience/necessity. The trial court denied the traverse motions after treating them like section 2-619 motions and refused offers of proof.
- At pretrial, the trial court granted IEPC motions in limine excluding landowners’ expert and lay valuation testimony (finding they relied on improper elements such as stigma, fear of leaks, hydrostatic testing risks, and barred land-option evidence). IEPC presented appraisal stipulations and the court entered directed verdicts, awarding just compensation set by IEPC experts.
- On appeal the Fourth District (Steigmann, J.) vacated the denial of the traverse motions and remanded for a limited, expedited, two-stage traverse hearing limited to (1) rebutting the statutory presumptions that the acquisition is for public benefit and necessary for a public purpose and (2) refuting the Commission’s finding that IEPC negotiated in good faith. The court affirmed that exclusion of valuation testimony was within the trial court’s discretion but declined to affirm final judgment because the traverse error required remand for the limited hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (IEPC) | Defendant's Argument (Landowners) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper scope/procedure for traverse hearing | Traverse is akin to a section 2-619 motion; landowners failed to plead an affirmative matter; trial court properly dismissed without live evidence | Traverse is a limited evidentiary proceeding allowing landowners to present evidence (including witnesses) to rebut statutory presumptions and refute Commission good-faith finding | Trial court erred by treating the traverse as a 2-619 dismissal and denying offers of proof; remanded for an expedited, two-stage traverse hearing limited to rebutting statutory presumptions and the good-faith finding |
| Standard and burden to rebut Commission findings | Commission findings are presumptive; trial court need not allow broad relitigation | Landowners entitled to present evidence to rebut the rebuttable presumptions under the Eminent Domain Act and to challenge the Commission’s good-faith negotiation finding | The Commission’s determinations create rebuttable presumptions (public benefit and necessity) and substantial deference to the good-faith finding; landowners must be allowed the opportunity to attempt to rebut those presumptions (clear and convincing for public-use presumption; substantial evidence standard applied to good-faith finding) |
| Admissibility of landowners’ valuation and remainder-damage testimony | IEPC: valuation testimony inadmissible because based on improper elements (stigma, fear, leaks, hydrostatic testing) and lacked proper comparables; exclusion proper | Landowners: trial court abused discretion by excluding testimony and expert witnesses on just compensation and remainder damages | Court found trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding valuation testimony that relied on improper and speculative elements and affirmed that exclusion, but did not finalize judgment because traverse error required remand |
| Use of disputed land-option evidence ("Rudesill option") | IEPC: option expired or was improper and tainted expert opinions; exclusion appropriate | Landowners: option relevant to market value | Landowners forfeited appellate review of Rudesill option because they failed to cite or present the option’s terms in the record; court did not rely on this point for remand directions |
Key Cases Cited
- Trunkline Gas Co. v. O’Bryan, 21 Ill. 2d 95 (Ill. 1960) (testimony is incompetent if it considers improper elements of damage)
- City of Springfield v. West Koke Mill Dev. Corp., 312 Ill. App. 3d 900 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) (discussion of condemnation and traverse standards under prior law)
- Rasmussen v. Department of Transportation, 108 Ill. App. 3d 615 (Ill. App. Ct. 1982) (reiterating rule that valuation testimony is incompetent if it considers improper damage elements)
- In re Leona W., 228 Ill. 2d 439 (Ill. 2008) (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Bohanan v. People, 243 Ill. App. 3d 348 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) (example of appellate remand for expedited limited hearing and retained jurisdiction)