Kotara, LLC v. Schneider, 2018 IL App (3d) 160525

Plaintiffs Kotara, LLC and Braidkot, Ltd. owned a two‑parcel commercial property in Braidwood and sued the Illinois DOT Secretary seeking mandamus to require a separate eminent‑domain action for an "area of additional taking" where DOT had performed construction beyond the original taking.
A boundary dispute existed: plaintiffs relied on a 2005 survey by Gentile showing their rear boundary at the centerline of vacated Oak Street; DOT relied on a plat by Hodgen placing the rear line 25 feet southwest, creating a gap area DOT claimed was not in plaintiffs’ deed.
Both surveys showed a Route 53 right‑of‑way in or near the disputed area; witnesses had observed a concrete right‑of‑way marker in the vicinity where DOT worked.
Plaintiffs filed a mandamus action in 2012 seeking to compel DOT to commence eminent‑domain proceedings for the additional work; after a multi‑day bench trial the trial court found Hodgen more credible, held plaintiffs did not prove a clear right to mandamus relief, and awarded DOT costs of suit.
DOT moved for Rule 137 sanctions and sought over $11,000 in costs; the trial court denied sanctions and taxed minimal costs (just filing fee and summons); both parties appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs proved a clear right to mandamus compelling DOT to initiate condemnation for the additional area	Deed/legal description and extrinsic evidence show plaintiffs owned the disputed area; intent of conveyance controls boundary	Plaintiffs admitted ambiguity and thus lack clear ownership; DOT’s survey (Hodgen) is more reliable and work was in DOT’s ROW	Affirmed for DOT: plaintiffs failed to show clear right to mandamus; trial court credibility findings upheld (not against manifest weight)
Whether trial court erred in denying Rule 137 sanctions against plaintiffs	Sanctions unsupported; action not frivolous	Plaintiffs knew or should have known they lacked clear title and brought suit for improper leverage	Affirmed: denial of sanctions not an abuse of discretion given case complexity and reasonable differing views
Proper scope of recoverable "costs" under mandamus statute (735 ILCS 5/14‑105)	Statute should be interpreted narrowly consistent with Code §5‑109; limited taxable costs appropriate	"Costs" should be construed broadly to include reasonable fees/expenses as in Eminent Domain Act and federal practice	Affirmed narrow construction: only statutory/taxable costs (filing fee, summons) recoverable; broader relief must come from legislature

1350 Lake Shore Associates v. Randall, 401 Ill. App. 3d 96 (Ill. App. 3d 2010) (bench‑trial mandamus rulings reviewed for manifest weight of the evidence)
Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d 21 (Ill. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for sanction rulings and limits on overturning discretionary rulings)
In re Leona W., 228 Ill. 2d 439 (Ill. 2008) (high threshold for finding an abuse of discretion in sanction matters)
Vicencio v. Lincoln‑Way Builders, Inc., 204 Ill. 2d 295 (Ill. 2003) (statutes authorizing costs are in derogation of common law and must be narrowly construed)
Peterson v. Randhava, 313 Ill. App. 3d 1 (Ill. App. 1st 2000) (purpose and scope of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137)