2017 IL App (1st) 170941
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Several golf courses (Gleneagles, Mid-Iron, Cog Hill) and Ludwig Farms filed voluntary annexation petitions to the Village of Palos Park in 2014–2015 under 65 ILCS 5/7-1-8.
- Petitioners (14 residential landowners, later joined by the Village of Lemont) filed an involuntary annexation petition under 65 ILCS 5/7-1-2 on December 11, 2015 seeking to annex ~117 acres to Lemont, which would disrupt Palos Park’s contiguity with the golf courses.
- Palos Park and the golf courses argued the earlier voluntary petitions had priority and objected; Palos Park pursued an intergovernmental annexation of forest preserve land in late 2015 that created contiguity to the golf courses.
- A section 7-1-2 hearing occurred January 7, 2016; the court continued the matter to January 20 to accommodate Palos Park’s imminent annexation ordinances. Petitioners’ motion for substitution of judge was denied.
- Palos Park adopted annexation ordinances in January–February 2016; Objectors obtained a protective order limiting discovery to records from January 1, 2015 forward.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Objectors, holding the 2015 voluntary petitions were not abandoned and thus had priority; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of substitution of judge | Motion timely; entitlement to one substitution as of right | Motion was judge shopping because a substantive hearing had already occurred | Denial affirmed — hearing and substantive ruling occurred before motion; petitioners had chance to "test the waters" |
| Whether voluntary 2015 petitions were properly filed | Petitioners argued lack of evidence that Palos Park clerk received petitions | Objectors produced testimony and documents showing delivery to clerk or clerk office custody | Held: filings were valid (filing occurs when delivered to clerk/office) |
| Whether 2015 voluntary petitions were abandoned (priority) | Petitioners argued Palos Park corporate authorities did not act promptly; cited Worth to claim abandonment | Objectors showed sustained, continuous actions (meetings, negotiations, legal work, forest preserve annexation) advancing annexations | Held: No abandonment; voluntary 2015 petitions retained priority over later involuntary petition |
| Scope of discovery (limiting pre-2015 materials) | Petitioners sought earlier records (2009–2011 petitions) as relevant to abandonment theory | Objectors argued prior petitions irrelevant to priority of 2015 petitions | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion in limiting discovery to Jan 1, 2015 onward |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Village of Worth v. Ihde, 23 Ill. 2d 63 (Ill. 1961) (abandonment of annexation where municipal board took no action for extended period)
- In re Petition to Annex Certain Property to the City of Wood Dale, 244 Ill. App. 3d 820 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) (voluntary annexation initiated by landowner filing; completed by municipal action)
- In re Petition for Submittal of the Question of Annexation to the Corporate Authorities of the City of Joliet, 282 Ill. App. 3d 684 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (priority determined by initiation time; abandonment defeated by evidence of actions)
- People ex rel. Village of Long Grove, 199 Ill. App. 3d 395 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990) (planning meetings and municipal studies constitute sufficient "action" to avoid abandonment)
- Gietl v. Commissioners of Drainage District No. One, 384 Ill. 499 (Ill. 1943) (a document is filed when deposited into the clerk’s custody)
- Ioerger v. Halverson Construction Co., 232 Ill. 2d 196 (Ill. 2008) (standard and review for summary judgment)
- Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co., 211 Ill. 2d 32 (Ill. 2004) (summary judgment is to determine whether genuine issues of material fact exist)