Forest Preserve District v. First National Bank
2011 IL 110759
| Ill. | 2011Background
- In 1999, the District condemned property in Du Page County, applying the filing-date valuation rule under 7-121.
- A 2007 jury valued the 1999-date taking at $10.725 million; judgment awarded that amount but did not transfer title.
- Appellate court remanded to determine whether a current-value difference warranted a second trial on just compensation.
- Kirby Forest Industries held that a taking occurs when payment is made and title/possession pass; remand for change in value may be required.
- Illinois law historically treated the filing date as the valuation date; Blue Island and Dunlevy limited exceptions were discussed and later distinguished.
- District deposition of funds without immediate title transfer left open whether a taking had occurred, allowing remand and potential abandonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the proper taking/valuation date under Illinois law? | Krilich: 7-121 uses filing date; Kirby allows remand for change in value. | District: value fixed at filing; delay cannot trigger current-value remedy absent Kirby. | Kirby applies; taking occurs when payment/title pass; remand to assess material change. |
| Does Kirby apply in Illinois condemnation and require a remand for changed value? | Kirby requires current-value consideration if value changes after filing. | Illinois may limit Kirby’s reach; delay must be attributable to government. | Kirby applies; remand authorized if value changed, constituting potential lack of just compensation. |
| Did the defendants forfeit their Kirby/constitutional challenge by timing or waiver? | Defendants preserved Kirby issue pre-trial and briefs; not forfeited. | Defendants invited error or waived by prior actions or lack of speedy-trial demand. | No forfeiture; issues were fully briefed and argued and considered on merits. |
| Was the district entitled to a Kirby-remand remedy on remand for material value change? | Remand is necessary to ensure just compensation reflecting current value. | Remand may be unnecessary or improper if no delay attributable to district. | Appellate court properly ordered remand to determine if current value differs from 1999 value. |
| May the District abandon the condemnation on remand after depositing funds but before taking title? | Once funds deposited, taking occurs; abandonment would prejudice defendants. | If no taking occurred, abandonment should be permissible to avoid higher costs. | District may abandon if taking has not occurred; remand clarifies timing of taking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunlevy v. South Park Commissioners, 91 Ill. 53 (1878) (takes value date does not equal taking; filing not taking)
- Chapin, 226 Ill. 499 (1907) (diligence in condemnation; value date considerations)
- Blue Island Community Unit School District v. First National Bank, 49 Ill. 2d 408 (1971) (fault-based delay; possible damages; not always controlling)
- Winkelman v. City of Chicago, 213 Ill. 360 (1904) (speedy-trial concepts in delay remedies)
- West Suburban Bank v. Forest Preserve District, 161 Ill. 2d 448 (1994) (amorphous timing of taking; rights to taxes; viability of taking date)
- Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1 (1984) (taking occurs on payment and title transfer; remand for change in value allowed)
- Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271 (1939) (taking upon payment unless statutory exception)
- Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271 (1939) (taking; payment date as critical point)
- Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) (due process; adequate remedies for delay)
- Sanitary District of Chicago v. Chapin, 226 Ill. 499 (1907) (origin of date-of-filing valuation rule)