Enbridge Pipelines, LLC v. Troyer
38 N.E.3d 1282
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2015Background
- IEPC (Enbridge) obtained ICC certification to build the 36-inch SAX petroleum pipeline and later received eminent-domain authority for certain tracts, including 148 disputed parcels along the route.
- Landowners in McLean County (Defendants) refused IEPC access pending jury determinations of just compensation; ownership and possession remained with landowners throughout condemnation.
- IEPC moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin landowners from impeding access so construction could proceed on schedule; IEPC emphasized costly delays and contractual/in-service deadlines.
- The trial court granted the injunction, requiring IEPC to deposit $1.7 million with the county treasurer (to cover asserted easement values) and post a $27 million surety bond (to secure damages to the remainder).
- Landowners appealed, arguing IEPC lacked authority to access property before payment of just compensation; IEPC argued equitable authority existed and funds/bond protected landowners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had legal authority to enjoin landowners from impeding IEPC's access before just compensation was determined/paid | IEPC: court has equitable authority to issue a preliminary injunction to protect its ICC-granted condemnation rights and to prevent irreparable harm | Landowners: IEPC cannot access property or obtain possession until just compensation is determined and paid; injunction is an unconstitutional taking | Court: Equitable authority exists; injunction did not transfer title/possession or effect a regulatory taking and is permissible where compensation process is available |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the injunction | IEPC: met preliminary-injunction factors (ascertainable right, irreparable harm, no adequate remedy, likelihood of success); posted funds and bond to protect landowners | Landowners: injunction premature and harms property rights absent immediate payment | Court: No abuse of discretion; IEPC showed clear right, irreparable harm, lack of adequate remedy, and provided cash and bond protections |
| Whether the injunction amounted to a “quick take” requiring immediate payment | IEPC: injunction only restricts interference with construction rights approved by ICC; landowners keep title/possession | Landowners: injunction effectively takes property without contemporaneous compensation | Held: Not a quick take; injunction merely limits interference and preserves landowners’ ownership/possession; payment of compensation can follow via condemnation process |
| Adequacy of protections for landowners against uncompensated deprivation | IEPC: deposited full asserted easement value and posted a sizeable surety bond; funds available upon application/hearing | Landowners: protections insufficient absent immediate payment | Held: Court found deposits and bond satisfactory to protect landowners and supported equitable relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Forest Preserve District of Du Page County v. West Suburban Bank, 161 Ill.2d 448, 641 N.E.2d 493 (1994) (preliminary injunction in condemnation context does not necessarily effect a taking when title/possession remain and compensation remedies exist)
- Roxana Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. WRB Refining, LP, 973 N.E.2d 1073 (2012) (standard of review and factors for preliminary injunction)
- Clinton Landfill, Inc. v. Mahomet Water Valley Authority, 406 Ill. App. 3d 374, 943 N.E.2d 725 (2010) (de novo review of legal questions about injunction authority)
- Northern Border Pipeline Co. v. 64.111 Acres of Land, 125 F. Supp. 2d 299 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (federal example recognizing equitable power to grant preliminary possession despite lack of statutory quick-take authority)