FOREST PRESERVE DIST. v. First Nat. Bank, 961 N.E.2d 775

1978–1999: District sought to condemn 204 acres (golf course and Summit parcel) for development near Naperville; valuation date governed by 7-121 as the filing date (Dec 21, 1999).
Ownership disputes delayed proceedings from 1999 until resolved in 2001–2004, with control of defense tensions among Krilich and White resolved in 2004.
2005–2007: post-trial/discovery procedures; Kirby Forest motion raised to test whether value had materially changed since 1999; trial occurred on Dec 12, 2007 producing a $10.725 million value as of 1999; judgment entered Dec 19, 2007.
District deposited the award with the county treasurer on Dec 20, 2007, tolling interest but not transferring title or possession; trial court deferred transfer of title pending further orders.
Appellate court on remand vacated the verdict pending a Kirby-type hearing to assess current value; held the District could abandon the taking if no taking had occurred.
Illinois Supreme Court adopts Kirby-based framework, holding taking occurs when payment is deposited and title/possession are acquired, overruling prior Dunlevy-Blue Island-Farwell interpretations to the extent inconsistent with Kirby.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper timing of taking and valuation under Kirby.	Kirby applies; taking date is deposit/date of payment, not filing.	Illinois follows filing date under 7-121 unless govt delay alters value.	Kirby applies; taking occurs at deposit/acquisition; remand permitted for value change.
Was Kirby properly applied despite delay with no government fault?	Delay should trigger current-value inquiry under Kirby.	Delay must be governmental fault for Kirby remedy to apply.	Kirby remedy available; no forfeiture; remand appropriate.
Whether defendants forfeited Kirby argument by procedure.	Defendants raised Kirby issue pre-trial and on appeal.	Failure to seek speedy-trial relief should bar relief.	No forfeiture; Kirby issue reachably decided on merits.
District’s right to abandon condemnation on remand.	If no taking occurred, abandonment should be permitted.	Once deposit occurred, taking fixed; abandonment improper.	District may abandon if taking has not yet occurred.
Whether District’s good-faith negotiations were properly determined.	Offer supported by appraisal evidence; negotiations in good faith.	Offer below appraised value and timing debated; not good faith.	Yes, negotiations were in good faith; summary judgment affirmed.

Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1984) (takings date by payment; remand to assess change in value permitted)
Dunlevy v. South Park Commissioners, 91 Ill. 49 (Ill. 1878) (taking not upon filing; value measured later)
Blue Island v. Trustees, 49 Ill.2d 408 (Ill. 1971) (valuation date tied to filing petition; not a taking date)
Farwell v. City of Chicago, 286 Ill. 415 (Ill. 1918) (discussion of time of taking vs. valuation; later overruled where inconsistent with Kirby)
West Suburban Bank v. Forest Preserve District, 161 Ill.2d 448 (Ill. 1994) (ambiguous taking time; title/possession and payment timing considerations)
Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271 (U.S. 1939) (taking date may be fixed by payment or statutory provision)
Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1985) (due process considerations for just compensation remedy)
Chapin v. Trustees of Township No. 37, 226 Ill. 499 (Ill. 1907) (early rule on valuation timing in Illinois condemnation)
Winkelman v. City of Chicago, 213 Ill. 360 (Ill. 1904) (dtf guidance on diligence and speedy proceedings)