Hartz Const. v. Village of Western Springs
965 N.E.2d 1159
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Recapture agreement dated October 2002 between Rhoads group and Village to reimburse improvements benefitting Hartz parcels.
- Hartz owns three noncontiguous parcels (Waterford PUD) surrounded by Rhoads property and intended to be developed with Commonwealth Development.
- Commonwealth Development is a Village-approved four-phase project; Hartz's Waterford parcels are beneficiated by public improvements.
- Ordinances: 92-1844 (1992) imposing required improvements; later amendments and resolutions enabling Hartz Hartz-Hartz-related transactions and Outlot A/D-3 dedication.
- Litigation commenced January 2006 seeking injunctive/declaratory relief regarding recapture costs and property conveyance; trial court granted partial summary judgment and later reconsideration in Village’s favor; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indemnification duty under recapture agreement | Hartz/Village claim indemnity; no implied cooperation duty. | Rhoads side argues implied duty of cooperation nullifies indemnity. | Indemnification upheld; no implied cooperation duty beyond explicit terms. |
| Village authority to vacate property for Hartz purchase | Village acted within authority to vacate under ordinances. | Rhoads asserts cy pres applicability and limits. | Code grants vacuum authority; cy pres inapplicable. |
| Dedication of Outlot A (Outlot D-3) to Village | Outlot must be dedicated as a condition of ordinance. | Dispute over whether parcels are the same property. | Dedication required; benefits accepted waived objections. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waste Management, Inc. v. International Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 144 Ill.2d 178 (Ill. 1991) (cooperation inferred where policy expressly requires information sharing; plain language governs contracts generally)
- Kipnis v. Mandel Metals, Inc., 318 Ill.App.3d 498 (Ill. App. 2000) (implied cooperation when necessary for performance of agreement)
- Plote, Inc. v. Minnesota Alden Co., 96 Ill.App.3d 1001 (Ill. App. 1981) (waiver of objections by accepting the ordinance's benefits)
- Zweifel Mfg. Corp. v. City of Peoria, 11 Ill.2d 489 (Ill. 1957) (concept of waiver of objections by accepting benefits of ordinance)
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 154 Ill.2d 90 (Ill. 1992) (summary judgment standards; de novo review applicable)
- Seip v. Rogers Raw Materials Fund, L.P., 408 Ill.App.3d 434 (Ill. App. 2011) (duty of good faith and fair dealing; contract interpretation)